Abstract Background Most forms of obesity are associated with chronic diseases that remain a global public health challenge. Aims Despite significant advancements in understanding its pathophysiology, effective management of obesity is hindered by the persistence of knowledge gaps in epidemiology, phenotypic heterogeneity and policy implementation. Materials and Methods This consensus statement by the European Society for Clinical Investigation identifies eight critical areas requiring urgent attention. Key gaps include insufficient long‐term data on obesity trends, the inadequacy of body mass index (BMI) as a sole diagnostic measure, and insufficient recognition of phenotypic diversity in obesity‐related cardiometabolic risks. Moreover, the socio‐economic drivers of obesity and its transition across phenotypes remain poorly understood. Results The syndemic nature of obesity, exacerbated by globalization and environmental changes, necessitates a holistic approach integrating global frameworks and community‐level interventions. This statement advocates for leveraging emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, to refine predictive models and address phenotypic variability. It underscores the importance of collaborative efforts among scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders to create tailored interventions and enduring policies. Discussion The consensus highlights the need for harmonizing anthropometric and biochemical markers, fostering inclusive public health narratives and combating stigma associated with obesity. By addressing these gaps, this initiative aims to advance research, improve prevention strategies and optimize care delivery for people living with obesity. Conclusion This collaborative effort marks a decisive step towards mitigating the obesity epidemic and its profound impact on global health systems. Ultimately, obesity should be considered as being largely the consequence of a socio‐economic model not compatible with optimal human health.
» Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. » A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. » Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.
Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The BMJ.NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address. Username * Your Email * Send To * You are going to email the following Outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: why monitoring matters Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
<p>PDF - 121KB, Exclusion Criteria for Scoring by Scientific Area and Translational Stage, Comparison of Translational Stage of CEC versus non-CEC associated cancer genetics papers, Acknowledgement of CEC contributions in associated papers. Table 1: Scientific areas, their definitions, and examples from the literature analysis. Table 2: Acknowledgment CEC contributions in 472 papers, associated with 4 established CEC, by acknowledgement type.</p>
Former SSCS officers and AdCom members Asad Abidi, Mark Horowitz, and Teresa Meng were among 64 Americans and nine foreign associates elected in January to the National Academy of Engineering Class of 2007.
This paper describes a noise-based method of estimating the effects of device random mismatch on circuit's transient response, such as delay and frequency. The proposed method models DC mismatch as equivalent AC pseudo-noise and exploits the fast periodic noise analysis (PNOISE) available in RF circuit simulators to compute the resulting variation in the circuit response. While the method relies on Gaussian mismatch distributions and linear perturbation model, it can model and analyze correlations as well as identify the most sensitive design parameter to mismatches with no additional simulation cost. Three benchmarks measuring the variations in the input offset voltage of a comparator, the delay of a logic path, and the frequency of an oscillator demonstrate the speed improvement of 100--1000x compared to a 1000-point Monte-Carlo method.
Abstract Background Health authorities, such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), inspect clinical sites performing clinical trials and occasionally find evidence of substantial departures from Good Clinical Practice (GCP). However, if the findings are not transposed in the medical literature, publication of those trials may convey inaccurate messages. Methods Objective to describe the differences between EMA GCP inspection reports and medical literature on drugs with withdrawn or refused applications. Design a retrospective study comparing studies included in European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and the corresponding articles published in the medical literature. Data sources—we screened all EPARs released by the EMA from inception to April 2024 for drugs that were refused or had a withdrawn application. Data extracted — two reviewers independently gathered information on the GCP inspections and their findings. The reviewers checked related publications for mentions of the inspection and any subsequent correction, retraction, or expressions of concern related to its findings. Main outcome measures — the main outcome was the mention of the GCP inspection findings in the publication of the inspected studies. We also assessed whether there was any mention of these findings in a correction, retraction or expression of concern. Results Out of 285 EPARs screened, 57 (20%) mentioned a GCP inspection. Fifty-eight distinct studies with inspections had 61 publications. In most of the cases ( n = 47, 77%), the study was published before the EPARs. Only 1 publication (2%) addressed the inspection findings. Moreover, there were no corrections, retractions or expressions of concern related to inspection findings. Among the 61 publications, 26 (43%) were related with 24 distinct studies that had an inspection that casted doubts on data reliability, but none mentioned the inspections at or after the time of publication. Conclusions This meta-research survey indicates that health authorities’ GCP inspections are not reflected in the medical literature, even when the inspections have put the data reliability in doubt. This study raises the question of responsibility for any corrections that may be necessary in medical literature following the publication of EPARs.
