Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening?

The biomedical research complex has been estimated to consume almost a quarter of a trillion US dollars every year. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that a high proportion of this sum is avoidably wasted. In 2014, The Lancet published a series of five reviews showing how dividends from the investment in research might be increased from the relevance and priorities of the questions being asked, to how the research is designed, conducted, and reported. 17 recommendations were addressed to five main stakeholders-funders, regulators, journals, academic institutions, and researchers. This Review provides some initial observations on the possible effects of the Series, which seems to have provoked several important discussions and is on the agendas of several key players. Some examples of individual initiatives show ways to reduce waste and increase value in biomedical research. This momentum will probably move strongly across stakeholder groups, if collaborative relationships evolve between key players; further important work is needed to increase research value. A forthcoming meeting in Edinburgh, UK, will provide an initial forum within which to foster the collaboration neede

Developing, delivering and documenting rehabilitation in a multi-centre randomised controlled surgical trial: experiences from the ProFHER trial

OBJECTIVES: A rigorous approach to developing, delivering and documenting rehabilitation within randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions is required to underpin the generation of reliable and usable evidence. This article describes the key processes used to ensure provision of good quality and comparable rehabilitation to all participants of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing surgery with conservative treatment of proximal humeral fractures in adults. METHODS: These processes included the development of a patient information leaflet on self-care during sling immobilisation, the development of a basic treatment physiotherapy protocol that received input and endorsement by specialist physiotherapists providing patient care, and establishing an expectation for the provision of home exercises. Specially designed forms were also developed to facilitate reliable reporting of the physiotherapy care that patients received. RESULTS: All three initiatives were successfully implemented, alongside the measures to optimise the documentation of physiotherapy. Thus, all participating sites that recruited patients provided the sling immobilisation leaflet, all adhered to the physiotherapy protocol and all provided home exercises. There was exemplary completion of the physiotherapy forms that often reflected a complex patient care pathway. These data demonstrated equal and high access to and implementation of physiotherapy between groups, including the performance of home exercises. CONCLUSION: In order to increase the validity and relevance of the evidence from trials of surgical interventions and meet international reporting standards, careful attention to study design, conduct and reporting of the intrinsic rehabilitation components is required. The involvement of rehabilitation specialists is crucial to achieving this. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:335–40

Centre selection for clinical trials and the generalisability of results: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The rationale for centre selection in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often unclear but may have important implications for the generalisability of trial results. The aims of this study were to evaluate the factors which currently influence centre selection in RCTs and consider how generalisability considerations inform current and optimal practice. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Mixed methods approach consisting of a systematic review and meta-summary of centre selection criteria reported in RCT protocols funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) initiated between January 2005-January 2012; and an online survey on the topic of current and optimal centre selection, distributed to professionals in the 48 UK Clinical Trials Units and 10 NIHR Research Design Services. The survey design was informed by the systematic review and by two focus groups conducted with trialists at the Birmingham Centre for Clinical Trials. 129 trial protocols were included in the systematic review, with a total target sample size in excess of 317,000 participants. The meta-summary identified 53 unique centre selection criteria. 78 protocols (60%) provided at least one criterion for centre selection, but only 31 (24%) protocols explicitly acknowledged generalisability. This is consistent with the survey findings (n = 70), where less than a third of participants reported generalisability as a key driver of centre selection in current practice. This contrasts with trialists' views on optimal practice, where generalisability in terms of clinical practice, population characteristics and economic results were prime considerations for 60% (n = 42), 57% (n = 40) and 46% (n = 32) of respondents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Centres are rarely enrolled in RCTs with an explicit view to external validity, although trialists acknowledge that incorporating generalisability in centre selection should ideally be more prominent. There is a need to operationalize 'generalisability' and incorporate it at the design stage of RCTs so that results are readily transferable to 'real world' practice

A systematic review of the use of an expertise-based randomised controlled trial design

Acknowledgements JAC held a Medical Research Council UK methodology (G1002292) fellowship, which supported this research. The Health Services Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences (University of Aberdeen), is core-funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. Views express are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funders.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Quality of reporting internal and external validity data from randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Stents are commonly used to treat patients with coronary artery disease. However, the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of stents has never been assessed.</p> <p>The objective of our study was to evaluate the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of RCTs assessing the stents for percutaneous coronary interventions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic literature review was conducted. Reports of RCTs assessing stents for percutaneous coronary interventions indexed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and published between January 2003 and September 2008 were selected. A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data. All analyses were adjusted for the effect of clustering articles by journal.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>132 articles were analyzed. The generation of the allocation sequence was adequate in 58.3% of the reports; treatment allocation was concealed in 34.8%. Adequate blinding was reported in one-fifth of the reports. An intention-to-treat analysis was described in 79.5%. The main outcome was a surrogate angiographic endpoint in 47.0%. The volume of interventions per center was described in two reports. Operator expertise was described in five (3.8%) reports. The quality of reporting was better in journals with high impact factors and in journals endorsing the CONSORT statement.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The current reporting of results of RCTs testing stents needs to be improved to allow readers to appraise the risk of bias and the applicability of the results.</p

Studies of transverse and longitudinal relaxations of 55^{55}Mn in molecular cluster magnet Mn12_{12}Ac

The transverse and longitudinal relaxation rates 1/$T_2$ and 1/$T_1$ of $^{55}$Mn in molecular cluster magnet Mn$_{12}$Ac have been measured al low temperatures down to 200mK and in the fields upto 9T. Both of 1/$T_2$ and 1/$T_1$ exhibit remarkable decreases with decreasing temperature and with increasing field, with the relative relation $T_1/T_2 \approx 200$. In the analysis, we adopt a simple model that the thermal fluctuation of the cluster spin $S$=10 associated with the spin-phonon interactionis, is only due to the excitation to the first excited state from the ground state with the average life-times $\tau_ 1$ and $\tau_0$ ($\tau_ 0$$\gg$$\tau_1$). We show that 1/$T_2$ is interpreted in terms of the strong collision regime as given by 1/$\tau_ 0$, and that 1/$T_1$ is understood by the high-frequency limit based on standard perturbation treatment for the step-wise fluctuating field, thus being proportional to 1/$\tau_0\omega_N^2$.Comment: 12 pages, 11 fugures, revtex