Publications

Excluding treatments in network meta-analyses sometimes can have important effects on their results and can diminish the usefulness of the research to clinicians if important comparisons are missing.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are increasingly common. This article aims to provide guidance for people conducting systematic reviews relevant to the healthcare of older people. An awareness of these issues will also help people reading systematic reviews to determine whether the results will influence their clinical practice. It is essential that systematic reviews are performed by a team which includes the required technical and clinical expertise. Those performing reviews for the first time should ensure they have appropriate training and support. They must be planned and performed in a transparent and methodologically robust way: guidelines are available. The protocol should be written-and if possible published-before starting the review. Geriatricians will be interested in a table of baseline characteristics, which will help to determine if the studied samples or populations are similar to their patients. Reviews of studies of older people should consider how they will manage issues such as different age cut-offs; non-specific presentations; multiple predictors and outcomes; potential biases and confounders. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may provide evidence to improve older people's care, or determine where new evidence is required. Newer methodologies, such as meta-analyses of individual level data, network meta-analyses and umbrella reviews, and realist synthesis, may improve the reliability and clinical utility of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Optimal treatment decisions in children require sufficient evidence on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals in pediatric patients. However, there is concern that not enough trials are conducted in children and that pediatric trials differ from those performed in adults. Our objective was to measure the prevalence of pediatric studies among clinical drug trials and compare trial characteristics and quality indicators between pediatric and adult drug trials. METHODS: For conditions representing a high burden of pediatric disease, we identified all drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with start dates between 2006 and 2011 and tracked the resulting publications. We measured the proportion of pediatric trials and subjects for each condition and compared pediatric and adult trial characteristics and quality indicators. RESULTS: For the conditions selected, 59.9% of the disease burden was attributable to children, but only 12.0% (292/2440) of trials were pediatric (P < .001). Among pediatric trials, 58.6% were conducted without industry funding compared with 35.0% of adult trials (P < .001). Fewer pediatric compared with adult randomized trials examined safety outcomes (10.1% vs 16.9%, P = .008). Pediatric randomized trials were slightly more likely to be appropriately registered before study start (46.9% vs 39.3%, P = .04) and had a modestly higher probability of publication in the examined time frame (32.8% vs 23.2%, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial discrepancy between pediatric burden of disease and the amount of clinical trial research devoted to pediatric populations. This may be related in part to trial funding, with pediatric trials relying primarily on government and nonprofit organizations.

Science is not done in a vacuum - across fields of biomedicine, scientists have built on previous research and used data published in previous papers. A mainstay of scientific inquiry is the publication of one's research and recognition for this work is given in the form of citations and notoriety - ideally given in proportion to the quality of the work. Academic incentives, however, may encourage individual researchers to prioritize career ambitions over scientific truth. Recently, the New England Journal of Medicine published a commentary calling scientists who repurpose data "research parasites" who misuse data generated by others to demonstrate alternative hypotheses. In our opinion, the concept of data hoarding not only runs contrary to the spirit of, but also hinders scientific progress. Scientific research is meant to seek objective truth, rather than promote a personal agenda, and the only way to do so is through maximum transparency and reproducibility, no matter who is using the data….

Background: Adherence to primary prevention strategies that reduce coronary artery disease (CAD) risk is suboptimal. Hypothesis: Genetic data may serve as a motivator to reduce cardiovascular risk....

Data, code, and workflows should be available and cited

<title>Abstract</title> Background In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences. Methods To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences. Results A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading. Conclusion We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.