Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trials

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jo Bowyer
    started a topic Ref Trials

    Trials

    http://www.trialsjournal.com/?utm_ca...ource=Teradata

    Aims & scope
    Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that encompasses all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials in health. We publish articles on general trial methodology as well as protocols, commentaries and traditional results papers - regardless of outcome or significance of findings.

    Trials aims to experiment with, and refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these are included). We believe this journal represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials.

    Making all its content open access and not retaining copyright, Trials offers a way to make data both freely available and highly visible to trialists worldwide; this will benefit the impact of your publication among peers and societies. The journal has unrestricted space and takes advantage of all the technical possibilities available for electronic publishing.

    To date, journals have focused on reporting the results of trials, with very little coverage of why and how they are conducted. Reports of trials have been restricted both by authors and editors &mdash both parties often select only a subset of the outcomes measured, while the latter often impose word limits on the articles published making it difficult to communicate the lessons learnt from conducting the trial, let alone include adequate details of how the trial was conducted.

    The Internet offers both unlimited space and interactivity, and we are keen to harness these attributes. For instance, trialists are able to provide the detail required to be a true scientific record and do more to make the article's message comprehensible to a variety of reader groups. They are able to communicate not only all outcome measures, as well as varying analyses and interpretations, but also in-depth descriptions of what they did and what they learnt. This sharing of direct experience is fundamental to improving the quality and conduct of trials worldwide.

    Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
    via @SimonGandevia




    New clues to why a French drug trial went horribly wrong

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/...et_cid=1375976

    Scientists are one step closer to understanding how a clinical trial in France killed one volunteer and led to the hospitalization of five others in January 2016. A new study shows that the compound tested in the study, BIA 10-2474, has effects on many other enzymes in addition to the one it was supposed to inhibit. These “off-target” effects might explain why the drug caused side effects ranging from headaches to irreversible brain damage.

    “We suspected that BIA 10-2474 was a bad compound—now we know for sure,” says neuropharmacologist Daniele Piomelli from the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the new study.
    Update 10/06/2017
    Last edited by Jo Bowyer; 10-06-2017, 11:45 PM.

  • Jo Bowyer
    replied
    Do the humanities need a replication drive? A debate rages on

    https://retractionwatch.com/2019/02/...bate-rages-on/

    Leave a comment:


  • Jo Bowyer
    replied
    Research pushes back on benefits of compounded topical pain creams

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0205102542.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • Jo Bowyer
    replied
    Should journals credit eagle-eyed readers by name in retraction notices?

    https://retractionwatch.com/2019/02/...ction-notices/

    Leave a comment:


  • Jo Bowyer
    replied
    Imaging use for low back pain by Ontario primary care clinicians: protocol for a mixed methods study – the Back ON study

    https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biome...891-019-2427-1

    Background


    At any one time, one in every five Canadians has low back pain (LBP), and LBP is one of the most common health problems in primary care. Guidelines recommend that imaging not be routinely performed in patients presenting with LBP without signs or symptoms indicating a potential pathological cause. Yet imaging rates remain high for many patients who present without such indications. Inappropriate imaging can lead to inappropriate treatments, results in worse health outcomes and causes harm from unnecessary radiation. There is a need to understand the extent of, and factors contributing to, inappropriate imaging for LBP, and to develop effective strategies that target modifiable barriers and facilitators. The primary study objectives are to determine: 1) The rate of, and factors associated with, inappropriate lumbar spine imaging (x-ray, CT scan and MRI) for people with non-specific LBP presenting to primary care clinicians in Ontario; 2) The barriers and facilitators to reduce inappropriate imaging for LBP in primary care settings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jo Bowyer
    replied
    Football Compared with Usual Care in Men with Prostate Cancer (FC Prostate Community Trial): A Pragmatic Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial

    https://link.springer.com/article/10...279-018-1031-0

    In this trial, community-based football was a feasible exercise strategy for men with prostate cancer. Football did not improve prostate cancer-specific quality of life but did improve mental health; the clinical significance of this is unclear.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jo Bowyer
    replied
    Carpal tunnel release with versus without flexor retinaculum reconstruction for carpal tunnel syndrome at short- and long-term follow up—A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0211369

    Leave a comment:


  • Jo Bowyer
    commented on 's reply
    A Beginner’s Guide to the Peer Review System

    https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs...-review-system

  • Jo Bowyer
    replied
    Specific cognitive deficits in individuals with spinal cord injury

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0118130000.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • Jo Bowyer
    replied
    Follow-up score, change score or percentage change score for determining clinical important outcome following surgery? An observational study from the Norwegian registry for Spine surgery evaluating patient reported outcome measures in lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis

    https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biome...891-018-2386-y

    Leave a comment:


  • Jo Bowyer
    replied
    Scientific progress is built on failure

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00107-y

    Failure is something that all scientists experience — but it’s hard to tell, looking at our shiny conferences, polished presentations and glossy journals. Yet the whole point of science is that it is cutting edge. Comfortable science is an oxymoron. If we want to make new discoveries, that means taking a leap in the dark — a leap we might not take if we’re too afraid to fail.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jo Bowyer
    replied
    Group issues model retraction over antibody error

    http://retractionwatch.com/2019/01/1...ntibody-error/

    The authors of a 2013 paper on antibody production in patients with rheumatoid arthritis have retracted the work in what looks to us like a case study in how to handle operator error.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jo Bowyer
    replied
    Journals are failing to address duplication in the literature, says a new study

    http://retractionwatch.com/2019/01/0...s-a-new-study/

    Since we’re often asked why duplication is a problem, we’ll quote from the new paper: Duplication “can inflate an author’s or journal’s prestige, but wastes time and resources of readers, peer reviewers, and publishers. Duplication of data can also lead to biased estimates of efficacy or safety of treatments and products in meta-analyses of health interventions, as the same data which is calculated twice exaggerates the accuracy of the analysis, and leaves an impression that more patients were involved in testing a drug. Not referencing the origin or the overlap of the data, can therefore be considered akin to fabrication, as it implies the data or information is new, when in fact it is not.”

    Leave a comment:


  • Jo Bowyer
    replied
    Lessons learned from open peer review: a publisher’s perspective

    https://www.springernature.com/gp/ad...C07FBCE01CE75B

    Leave a comment:


  • Jo Bowyer
    replied
    Which kind of peer review is best for catching fraud?

    http://retractionwatch.com/2018/12/2...atching-fraud/

    This is the best article I have read so far on peer review.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X