Screening for health risks: A social science perspective

Health screening promises to reduce risks to individuals via probabilistic sifting of populations for medical conditions. The categorisation and selection of 'conditions' such as cardiovascular events, dementia and depression for screening itself requires prior interpretive labour which usually remains unexamined. Screening systems can take diverse organisational forms and varying relationships to health status, as when purported disease precursors, for example 'pre-cancerous' polyps, or supposed risk factors, such as high cholesterol themselves, become targets for screening. Screening at best yields small, although not necessarily unworthwhile, net population health gains. It also creates new risks, leaving some individuals worse-off than if they had been left alone. The difficulties associated with attempting to measure small net gains through randomised controlled trials are sometimes underestimated. Despite endemic doubts about its clinical utility, bibliometric analysis of published papers shows that responses to health risks are coming to be increasingly thought about in terms of screening. This shift is superimposed on a strengthening tendency to view health through the lens of risk. It merits further scrutiny as a societal phenomenon

Moral entrepreneurship, the power‐knowledge nexus, and the Cochrane “crisis”

Background In 2018, a so‐called crisis developed in the international network of systematic reviewers known as Cochrane. It was widely depicted in terms of two competing narratives—“bad behaviour” by one member of Cochrane's Governing Board and scientific and moral decline within Cochrane. Objective Our goal was to distil insights on the structural issues underpinning the crisis, without taking a definitive position on the accuracy of either narrative. Approach and dataset In this paper, we draw on (among other theories) Becker's notion of moral entrepreneurship and Foucault's conceptualisation of power to analyse the claims and counterclaims made by different parties. Our dataset consisted of publicly available materials (blogs, journal articles, newspaper articles) to end 2018, notably those relating to the expulsion of one Governing Board member. Main findings Both narratives include strong moral claims about the science of systematic review and the governance of scientific organizations. The expelled individual and his supporters defined good systematic reviews in terms of a particular kind of methodological rigour and elimination of bias, and good governance largely in terms of measures to achieve independence from industry influence. Most of Cochrane's Governing Board and their sympathizers evaluated systematic reviews according to a broader range of criteria, incorporating factors such as attention to relationships among reviewers and reflexivity and dialogue around scientific and other judgements. They viewed governance partly in terms of accountability to an external advisory group. Power‐knowledge alignments in Cochrane have emerged from, and contributed to, a particular system of meaning which is now undergoing evolution and challenge. Conclusion Polarizing Cochrane's “crisis” into two narratives, only one of which is true, is less fruitful than viewing it in terms of a duality consisting of tensions between the two positions, each of which has some validity. Having framed the conflict as primarily philosophical and political rather than methodological and procedural, we suggest how Cochrane and its supporters and critics might harness their tensions productively

Divine intervention? A Cochrane review on intercessory prayer gone beyond science and reason

We discuss in this commentary a recent Cochrane review of 10 randomised trials aimed at testing the religious belief that praying to a god can help those who are prayed for. The review concluded that the available studies merit additional research. However, the review presented a scientifically unsound mixture of theological and scientific arguments, and two of the included trials that had a large impact on the findings had problems that were not described in the review. The review fails to live up to the high standards required for Cochrane reviews

Patient and public involvement in reducing health and care research waste

Background Eighty five per cent of health research expenditure is potentially wasted due to failure to publish research, unclear reporting of research that is published, and the failure of new research studies to systematically review previous research in the same topic area, poor study design and conduct. A great deal of progress has been made to address this issue but the role of patients and the public has not been considered. Main A small survey was undertaken, as part of a larger programme of work on reducing health and care waste, to understand the role of patients in reducing research waste. The study showed that patients are interested in this issue particularly in relation to the prioritisation of research and patient and public involvement. Conclusions Patients undertake key roles in the research process including co-applicancy, project management, or as co-researchers. This brings responsibility for ensuring high quality research and value for money. Responsibility for recognition of the potential for wasteful practices is part of the conduct and operation of research studies

Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Assessing the risk of bias in individual studies in a systematic review can be done using individual components or by summarizing the study quality in an overall score.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We examined the instructions to authors of the 50 Cochrane Review Groups that focus on clinical interventions for recommendations on methodological quality assessment of studies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-one of the review groups (82%) recommended quality assessment using components and nine using a scale. All groups recommending components recommended to assess concealment of allocation, compared to only two of the groups recommending scales (P < 0.0001). Thirty-five groups (70%) recommended assessment of sequence generation and 21 groups (42%) recommended assessment of intention-to-treat analysis. Only 28 groups (56%) had specific recommendations for using the quality assessment of studies analytically in reviews, with sensitivity analysis, quality as an inclusion threshold and subgroup analysis being the most commonly recommended methods. The scales recommended had problems in the individual items and some of the groups recommending components recommended items not related to bias in their quality assessment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We found that recommendations by some groups were not based on empirical evidence and many groups had no recommendations on how to use the quality assessment in reviews. We suggest that all Cochrane Review Groups refer to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, which is evidence-based, in their instructions to authors and that their own guidelines are kept to a minimum and describe only how methodological topics that are specific to their fields should be handled.</p

Measuring co-authorship and networking-adjusted scientific impact

Appraisal of the scientific impact of researchers, teams and institutions with productivity and citation metrics has major repercussions. Funding and promotion of individuals and survival of teams and institutions depend on publications and citations. In this competitive environment, the number of authors per paper is increasing and apparently some co-authors don't satisfy authorship criteria. Listing of individual contributions is still sporadic and also open to manipulation. Metrics are needed to measure the networking intensity for a single scientist or group of scientists accounting for patterns of co-authorship. Here, I define I1 for a single scientist as the number of authors who appear in at least I1 papers of the specific scientist. For a group of scientists or institution, In is defined as the number of authors who appear in at least In papers that bear the affiliation of the group or institution. I1 depends on the number of papers authored Np. The power exponent R of the relationship between I1 and Np categorizes scientists as solitary (R>2.5), nuclear (R=2.25-2.5), networked (R=2-2.25), extensively networked (R=1.75-2) or collaborators (R<1.75). R may be used to adjust for co-authorship networking the citation impact of a scientist. In similarly provides a simple measure of the effective networking size to adjust the citation impact of groups or institutions. Empirical data are provided for single scientists and institutions for the proposed metrics. Cautious adoption of adjustments for co-authorship and networking in scientific appraisals may offer incentives for more accountable co-authorship behaviour in published articles.Comment: 25 pages, 5 figure

Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it

International calls for registering all trials involving humans and for sharing the results, and sometimes also the raw data and the trial protocols, have increased in recent years. Such calls have come, for example, from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Health Organization (WHO), the US National Institutes of Heath, the US Congress, the European Commission, the European ombudsman, journal editors, The Cochrane Collaboration, and several funders, for example the UK Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation