1,720,962 research outputs found
Modifications to LDL and endothelial cells by oxidation and n-3 fatty acids
No full textEThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo
An exploratory investigation of the influence of publication on translational medicine research
Full text linkThe completeness of intervention descriptions in published National Institute of Health Research HTA-funded trials: a cross-sectional study
No full textObjectivesThe objective of this study was to assess whether National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the HTA journal were described in sufficient detail to replicate in practice.SettingRCTs published in the HTA journal.Participants98 RCTs published in the HTA journal up to March 2011. Completeness of the intervention description was assessed independently by two researchers using a checklist, which included assessments of participants, intensity, schedule, materials and settings. Disagreements in scoring were discussed in the team; differences were then explored and resolved.Primary and secondary outcome measuresProportion of trials rated as having a complete description of the intervention (primary outcome measure). The proportion of drug trials versus psychological and non-drug trials rated as having a complete description of the intervention (secondary outcome measures).ResultsComponents of the intervention description were missing in 68/98 (69.4%) reports. Baseline characteristics and descriptions of settings had the highest levels of completeness with over 90% of reports complete. Reports were less complete on patient information with 58.2% of the journals having an adequate description. When looking at individual intervention types, drug intervention descriptions were more complete than non-drug interventions with 33.3% and 30.6% levels of completeness, respectively, although this was not significant statistically. Only 27.3% of RCTs with psychological interventions were deemed to be complete, although again these differences were not significant statistically.ConclusionsEnsuring the replicability of study interventions is an essential part of adding value in research. All those publishing clinical trial data need to ensure transparency and completeness in the reporting of interventions to ensure that study interventions can be replicated
Additional file 2: of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme research funding and UK burden of disease
No full textHTA programme RCT spend. (JPEG 75 kb)</span
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme research funding and UK burden of disease
No full textBackground: HTA Programme funding is governed by the need for evidence and scientific quality, reflecting funding of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) by the NHS. The need criterion incorporates covering the spectrum of diseases, but also taking account of research supported by other funders. This study compared the NIHR HTA Programme portfolio of research with the UK burden of disease as measured by Disability-adjusted Life Years (DALYs). Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study using a cohort of all funded primary research and evidence syntheses projects received by the HTA Programme from April 2011 to March 2016 (n = 363); to determine the proportion of spend by disease compared with burden of disease in the UK calculated using 2015 UK DALY data. Results: The programme costing just under £44 million broadly reflected UK DALY burden by disease. Spend was lower than disease burden for cancer, cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases, which may reflect the importance of other funders, notably medical charities, which concentrate on these diseases. Conclusion: The HTA Programme spend, adjusted for other relevant funders, broadly matches disease burden in the UK; no diseases are being neglected.</p
Registration of noncommercial randomised clinical trials: the feasibility of using trial registries to monitor the number of trials
No full textBackground A 2003 survey suggested the number of noncommercial trials in the UK was declining. Formation of the NIHR in 2006 and increased research spending by the Department of Health may have increased the number of noncommercial trials but no data are available.Methods Available data on UK noncommercial trials (were obtained from the two relevant registries: ISRCTN register for the UK, and US ClinicalTrials.gov. Data on each trial were sorted by start year, and compared with the: 2003 survey, and UKCRN portfolio database from 2007.Results The number of UK noncommercial trials registered rose from 25 in 1990 to 188 in 1999, peaked at 533 in 2003, and fell back to 334 in 2009. Total trials registered was similar to but slightly above those in the 2003 survey up to 1998, then rose sharply to 2002 before falling to 2007. From 2007 to 2009 the number registered to start each year was similar to but slightly above the UKCRN database. Less than 10% of UK noncommercial trials registered with ClinGov for most years before 2005, but this rose to 35% by 2009.Conclusions For the periods of overlap, trial registration data provide fairly similar totals to other sources on the number of noncommercial trials starting each year. The rise and fall in the number of trials registered between 1999 and 2007 was due to those registered in the ISRCTN database as funded by NHS Trusts. After 2007, the number of trials registered as funded by NHS Trusts has fallen in the ISRCTN register but these trials may have migrated to the US ClinGov register. The total number of noncommercial trial starts, excluding those funded by NHS Trusts, has been upward since around 2002. By 2009 the two main funders were NIHR and charities. Feasibility of using registration data to monitor the number of noncommercial trials has been demonstrated but is complicated by the use of two registers and difficulties in accessing the data. We recommend an annual report on the number of noncommercial trials registering each year
The completeness of intervention descriptions in published NIHR HTA funded trials: a cross sectional study
No full textObjectives: the objective of this study is to assess whether NIHR HTA funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in Health Technology Assessment journal were described in sufficient detail to replicate in practice.Methods: a checklist for assessing intervention descriptions was applied to NIHR HTA funded RCTs published in Health Technology Assessment. The checklist was piloted twice on a sample of 10 reports. Kappa scores were generated to assess agreement in the checklist application. The checklist was modified and applied to all 98 NIHR HTA funded single trial RCTs published in the journal from January 1999 - March 2011. Three assessors independently applied the checklist. Disagreements in scoring were discussed in the team; differences were then explored and resolved.Results: components of the intervention description were missing in 68 / 98 (69.4%) reports. Baseline characteristics and descriptions of settings had the highest levels of completeness with over 90% of reports complete. Reports were less complete on patient information with 58.2% of the monographs having an adequate description. Intervention descriptions were more complete for drug interventions than non-drug interventions with 33.3% and 30.6% levels of completeness respectively. Only 27.3% of RCTs with psychological interventions were deemed to be complete, although numbers were too small for differences to be significant statistically.Conclusions: ensuring the replicability of a study intervention is an essential part of adding value in research. Research funders need to ensure transparency in the reporting of interventions, methods and findings and their responses to identified areas of improvement
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
