LIVIVO - Search results -

Search results

Result 1 - 10 of total 29

Search options

Article ; Online: Interventions for improving the design and conduct of scientific research

Catriona McDaid / Andrew Mott / Catherine Hewitt / Jamie J Kirkham

NIHR Open Research, Vol

A scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

2022 Volume 2

Abstract: Background Research waste is prevalent in many scientific fields despite a number of initiatives to improve research practices. Interventions to improve practice are often implemented without evaluating their effectiveness. It is therefore important to ... ...

Abstract	Background Research waste is prevalent in many scientific fields despite a number of initiatives to improve research practices. Interventions to improve practice are often implemented without evaluating their effectiveness. It is therefore important to identify the interventions that have been evaluated, assess how they have been evaluated and to identify areas where further research is required. Objectives A scoping review will be undertaken to assess what interventions, aimed at researchers or research teams, to improve research design and conduct have been evaluated. This review will also consider when in the research pathway these interventions are implemented; what aspects of research design or conduct are being targeted; and who is implementing these interventions. Methods Interventions which aim to improve the design or conduct of research will be eligible for inclusion. The review will not include interventions aimed at hypothetical research projects or interventions implemented without evaluation. The following sources will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, HMIC, EconLit, Social Policy and Practice, ProQuest theses, and MetaArXiv. Hand searching of references and citations of included studies will also be undertaken. Searches will be limited to articles published in the last 10 years. Data extraction will be completed using a data extraction template developed for this review. Results will be tabulated by type of intervention, research stage, and outcome. A narrative review will also be provided addressing each of the objectives.
Keywords	Meta-Research ; Research-on-Research ; Research Design ; Research Conduct ; Research Waste ; Scoping Review ; eng ; Medicine ; R
Subject code	306
Language	English
Publishing date	2022-06-01T00:00:00Z
Publisher	F1000 Research Ltd
Document type	Article ; Online
Database	BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

Full text online

Full text

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.

Article ; Online: Development of core outcome sets and core outcome measures for central visual impairment, visual field loss and ocular motility disorders due to stroke

Jamie J Kirkham / Fiona J Rowe / Lauren R Hepworth

BMJ Open, Vol 12, Iss

a Delphi and consensus study

2022 Volume 3

Keywords	Medicine ; R
Language	English
Publishing date	2022-03-01T00:00:00Z
Publisher	BMJ Publishing Group
Document type	Article ; Online
Database	BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

Full text online

Full text

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.

Article ; Online: Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists

Melissa L. Rethlefsen / Sara Schroter / Lex M. Bouter / David Moher / Ana Patricia Ayala / Jamie J. Kirkham / Maurice P. Zeegers

Trials, Vol 22, Iss 1, Pp 1-

protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2021 Volume 12

Abstract: Abstract Background Problems continue to exist with the reporting quality and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and ... ...

Abstract	Abstract Background Problems continue to exist with the reporting quality and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and fully report a search may not be prepared to review the search components of systematic reviews, nor may they know what is likely to introduce bias into a search. Librarians and information specialists, who have expertise in searching, may offer specialized knowledge that would help improve systematic review search reporting and lessen risk of bias, but they are underutilized as methodological peer reviewers. Methods This study will evaluate the effect of adding librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches. The study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using 150 systematic review manuscripts submitted to BMJ and BMJ Open as the unit of randomization. Manuscripts that report on completed systematic reviews and related review types and have been sent for peer review are eligible. For each manuscript randomized to the intervention, a librarian/information specialist will be invited as an additional peer reviewer using standard practices for each journal. First revision manuscripts will be assessed in duplicate for reporting quality and risk of bias, using adherence to 4 items from PRISMA-S and assessors’ judgements on 4 signaling questions from ROBIS Domain 2, respectively. Identifying information from the manuscripts will be removed prior to assessment. Discussion The primary outcomes for this study are quality of reporting as indicated by differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups and risk of bias as indicated by differences in the proportions of first revision manuscripts with high, low, and unclear bias. If the intervention demonstrates an effect on search ...
Keywords	Peer review ; Librarians and information specialists ; Systematic reviews ; Literature searching ; Medicine (General) ; R5-920
Subject code	306
Language	English
Publishing date	2021-11-01T00:00:00Z
Publisher	BMC
Document type	Article ; Online
Database	BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

Full text online

Full text

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.

Article ; Online: A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines [version 2; peer review

David Blanco / Darko Hren / Jamie J. Kirkham / Erik Cobo / Sara Schroter

F1000Research, Vol

2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

2019 Volume 8

Abstract: Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. ... ...

Abstract	Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation of different interventions and the potential effectiveness of these at improving adherence to reporting guidelines, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and were concerned that the quality of peer review could be compromised. Reviewers are generally not expected to focus on reporting issues but on providing an expert view on the importance, novelty, and relevance of the manuscript. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to take action to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Implementing and evaluating editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines is essential to improve the transparency of published research. This survey aims to cast light on the barriers and facilitators that can be expected when implementing diverse interventions, as well as on the potential impact of these interventions.
Keywords	Medicine ; R ; Science ; Q
Subject code	380
Language	English
Publishing date	2019-12-01T00:00:00Z
Publisher	F1000 Research Ltd
Document type	Article ; Online
Database	BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

Full text online

Full text

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.

Article ; Online: A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines [version 3; peer review

David Blanco / Darko Hren / Jamie J. Kirkham / Erik Cobo / Sara Schroter

F1000Research, Vol

3 approved]

2019 Volume 8

Abstract	Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation of different interventions and the potential effectiveness of these at improving adherence to reporting guidelines, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and were concerned that the quality of peer review could be compromised. Reviewers are generally not expected to focus on reporting issues but on providing an expert view on the importance, novelty, and relevance of the manuscript. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to take action to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Biomedical journal editors generally believed that engaging trained professionals would be the most effective, yet resource intensive, editorial intervention. Also, they thought that peer reviewers should not be asked to check RGs. Future evaluations of interventions can take ...
Keywords	Medicine ; R ; Science ; Q
Language	English
Publishing date	2019-12-01T00:00:00Z
Publisher	F1000 Research Ltd
Document type	Article ; Online
Database	BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

Full text online

Full text

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.

Article ; Online: A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines [version 1; peer review

David Blanco / Darko Hren / Jamie J. Kirkham / Erik Cobo / Sara Schroter

F1000Research, Vol

1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

2019 Volume 8

Abstract	Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation and the potential effectiveness of different interventions, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and could decrease the overall quality of reviews. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to adopt strategies to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Further evaluation of interventions are required. These evaluations could take into account the points raised in this survey.
Keywords	Medicine ; R ; Science ; Q
Subject code	380
Language	English
Publishing date	2019-09-01T00:00:00Z
Publisher	F1000 Research Ltd
Document type	Article ; Online
Database	BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

Full text online

Full text

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.

Article ; Online: Assessing the impact of a research funder's recommendation to consider core outcome sets.

Karen L Hughes / Jamie J Kirkham / Mike Clarke / Paula R Williamson

PLoS ONE, Vol 14, Iss 9, p e

2019 Volume 0222418

Abstract: Background Core outcome sets (COS) have the potential to reduce waste in research by improving the consistency of outcomes measured in trials of the same health condition. However, this reduction in waste will only be realised through the uptake of COS ... ...

Abstract	Background Core outcome sets (COS) have the potential to reduce waste in research by improving the consistency of outcomes measured in trials of the same health condition. However, this reduction in waste will only be realised through the uptake of COS by clinical trialists. Without uptake, the continued development of COS that are not implemented may add to waste in research. Funders of clinical trials have the potential to have an impact on COS uptake by recommending their use to those applying for funding. The aim of our study was to assess the extent to which applicants followed the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme's recommendation to search for a COS to include in their clinical trial. Methods and findings We examined the outcomes section and detailed project descriptions of all 95 researcher-led primary research applications submitted to the NIHR HTA between January 2012, when the recommendation to search for a COS was included in the guidance for applicants, and December 2015 for evidence that a search for a COS had taken place and rationale for outcome choice in the absence of COS. A survey of applicants was conducted to further explore their use of COS and choice of outcomes with a response rate of 49%. Nine out of 95 applicants (10%) stated in their application that they had searched the COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) Initiative database for a COS and another nine referred to searching for a COS using another method, e.g. a review of the literature. Of the 77 (81%) applicants that did not mention COMET or COS in their application, eight stated in the survey that they had searched the COMET database and ten carried out a search using another method. Some applicants who did not search for a COS gave reasons for their choice of outcomes including taking advice from patients and the public and choosing outcomes used in previous trials. Conclusion A funding body can have an impact on COS uptake by encouraging trialists to search ...
Keywords	Medicine ; R ; Science ; Q
Language	English
Publishing date	2019-01-01T00:00:00Z
Publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Document type	Article ; Online
Database	BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

Full text online

Full text

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.

Article ; Online: STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies

Marty Chaplin / Jamie J Kirkham / Kerry Dwan / Derek J Sloan / Geraint Davies / Andrea L Jorgensen

PLoS Medicine, Vol 17, Iss 9, p e

Development of the STROPS guideline.

2020 Volume 1003344

Abstract: Background Large sample sizes are often required to detect statistically significant associations between pharmacogenetic markers and treatment response. Meta-analysis may be performed to synthesize data from several studies, increasing sample size and, ... ...

Abstract	Background Large sample sizes are often required to detect statistically significant associations between pharmacogenetic markers and treatment response. Meta-analysis may be performed to synthesize data from several studies, increasing sample size and, consequently, power to detect significant genetic effects. However, performing robust synthesis of data from pharmacogenetic studies is often challenging because of poor reporting of key data in study reports. There is currently no guideline for the reporting of pharmacogenetic studies that has been developed using a widely accepted robust methodology. The objective of this project was to develop the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline. Methods and findings We established a preliminary checklist of reporting items to be considered for inclusion in the guideline. We invited representatives of key stakeholder groups to participate in a 2-round Delphi survey. A total of 52 individuals participated in both rounds of the survey, scoring items with regards to their importance for inclusion in the STROPS guideline. We then held a consensus meeting, at which 8 individuals considered the results of the Delphi survey and voted on whether each item ought to be included in the final guideline. The STROPS guideline consists of 54 items and is accompanied by an explanation and elaboration document. The guideline contains items that are particularly important in the field of pharmacogenetics, such as the drug regimen of interest and whether adherence to treatment was accounted for in the conducted analyses. The guideline also requires that outcomes be clearly defined and justified, because in pharmacogenetic studies, there may be a greater number of possible outcomes than in other types of study (for example, disease-gene association studies). A limitation of this project is that our consensus meeting involved a small number of individuals, the majority of whom are based in the United Kingdom. Conclusions Our aim is for the STROPS guideline ...
Keywords	Medicine ; R
Subject code	310
Language	English
Publishing date	2020-09-01T00:00:00Z
Publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Document type	Article ; Online
Database	BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

Full text online

Full text

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.

Article ; Online: Effect of an editorial intervention to improve the completeness of reporting of randomised trials

Sara Schroter / David Moher / David Blanco / Isabelle Boutron / Jamie J Kirkham / Erik Cobo / Adrian Aldcroft

BMJ Open, Vol 10, Iss

a randomised controlled trial

2020 Volume 5

Abstract: Objective To evaluate the impact of an editorial intervention to improve completeness of reporting of reports of randomised trials.Design Randomised controlled trial (RCT).Setting BMJ Open’s quality improvement programme.Participants 24 manuscripts ... ...

Abstract	Objective To evaluate the impact of an editorial intervention to improve completeness of reporting of reports of randomised trials.Design Randomised controlled trial (RCT).Setting BMJ Open’s quality improvement programme.Participants 24 manuscripts describing RCTs.Interventions We used an R Shiny application to randomise manuscripts (1:1 allocation ratio, blocks of 4) to the intervention (n=12) or control (n=12) group. The intervention was performed by a researcher with expertise in the content of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and consisted of an evaluation of completeness of reporting of eight core CONSORT items using the submitted checklist to locate information, and the production of a report containing specific requests for authors based on the reporting issues found, provided alongside the peer review reports. The control group underwent the usual peer review.Outcomes The primary outcome is the number of adequately reported items (0–8 scale) in the revised manuscript after the first round of peer review. The main analysis was intention-to-treat (n=24), and we imputed the scores of lost to follow-up manuscripts (rejected after peer review and not resubmitted). The secondary outcome is the proportion of manuscripts where each item was adequately reported. Two blinded reviewers assessed the outcomes independently and in duplicate and solved disagreements by consensus. We also recorded the amount of time to perform the intervention.Results Manuscripts in the intervention group (mean: 7.01; SD: 1.47) were more completely reported than those in the control group (mean: 5.68; SD: 1.43) (mean difference 1.43, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.58). We observed the main differences in items 6a (outcomes), 9 (allocation concealment mechanism), 11a (blinding) and 17a (outcomes and estimation). The mean time to perform the intervention was 87 (SD 42) min.Conclusions We demonstrated the benefit of involving a reporting guideline expert in the editorial process. Improving the completeness of RCTs is essential to ...
Keywords	Medicine ; R
Subject code	306
Language	English
Publishing date	2020-05-01T00:00:00Z
Publisher	BMJ Publishing Group
Document type	Article ; Online
Database	BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

Full text online

Full text

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.

Article ; Online: Protocol for development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in melasma

Jamie J Kirkham / Murad Alam / Jochen Schmitt / Sarah A Ibrahim / Bianca Y Kang / Daniel I Schlessinger / Sarah G Chiren / Jennifer C Tang / Emily Poon / Ian A Maher / Joseph F Sobanko / Todd V Cartee

BMJ Open, Vol 12, Iss

2022 Volume 2

Keywords	Medicine ; R
Language	English
Publishing date	2022-02-01T00:00:00Z
Publisher	BMJ Publishing Group
Document type	Article ; Online
Database	BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

Full text online

Full text

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.

To top

Full text online

More links

Kategorien

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Full text online

More links

Kategorien

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Full text online

More links

Kategorien

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Full text online

More links

Kategorien

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Full text online

More links

Kategorien

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Full text online

More links

Kategorien

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Full text online

More links

Kategorien

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Full text online

More links

Kategorien

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Full text online

More links

Kategorien

Inter-library loan at ZB MED

Full text online

More links

Kategorien

Inter-library loan at ZB MED