The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement.

Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting.

Management of nanomaterials safety in research environment

Despite numerous discussions, workshops, reviews and reports about responsible development of nanotechnology, information describing health and environmental risk of engineered nanoparticles or nanomaterials is severely lacking and thus insufficient for completing rigorous risk assessment on their use. However, since preliminary scientific evaluations indicate that there are reasonable suspicions that activities involving nanomaterials might have damaging effects on human health; the precautionary principle must be applied. Public and private institutions as well as industries have the duty to adopt preventive and protective measures proportionate to the risk intensity and the desired level of protection. In this work, we present a practical, 'user-friendly' procedure for a university-wide safety and health management of nanomaterials, developed as a multi-stakeholder effort (government, accident insurance, researchers and experts for occupational safety and health). The process starts using a schematic decision tree that allows classifying the nano laboratory into three hazard classes similar to a control banding approach (from Nano 3 - highest hazard to Nano1 - lowest hazard). Classifying laboratories into risk classes would require considering actual or potential exposure to the nanomaterial as well as statistical data on health effects of exposure. Due to the fact that these data (as well as exposure limits for each individual material) are not available, risk classes could not be determined. For each hazard level we then provide a list of required risk mitigation measures (technical, organizational and personal). The target 'users' of this safety and health methodology are researchers and safety officers. They can rapidly access the precautionary hazard class of their activities and the corresponding adequate safety and health measures. We succeed in convincing scientist dealing with nano-activities that adequate safety measures and management are promoting innovation and discoveries by ensuring them a safe environment even in the case of very novel products. The proposed measures are not considered as constraints but as a support to their research. This methodology is being implemented at the Ecole Polytechnique de Lausanne in over 100 research labs dealing with nanomaterials. It is our opinion that it would be useful to other research and academia institutions as well. [Authors]

Underfunding of stroke research: a Europe-wide problem.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous studies in the United States and the United Kingdom have shown that stroke research is underfunded compared with coronary heart disease (CHD) and cancer research despite the high clinical and financial burden of stroke. We aimed to determine whether underfunding of stroke research is a Europe-wide problem. METHODS: Data for the financial year 2000 to 2001 were collected from 9 different European countries. Information on stroke, CHD, and cancer research funding awarded by disease-specific charities and nondisease-specific charity or government- funded organizations was obtained from annual reports, web sites, and by direct communication with organizations. RESULTS: There was marked and consistent underfunding of stroke research in all the countries studied. Stroke funding as a percentage of the total funding for stroke, CHD, and cancer was uniformly low, ranging from 2% to 11%. Funding for stroke was less than funding for cancer, usually by a factor of > or =10. In every country except Turkey, funding for stroke research was less than that for CHD. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that stroke research is grossly underfunded, compared with CHD and cancer, throughout Europe. Similar data have been obtained from the United States suggesting that relative underfunding of stroke research is likely to be a worldwide phenomenon.

Adjuvant dibromodulcitol and BCNU chemotherapy in anaplastic astrocytoma: results of a randomised European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III study (EORTC study 26882).

BACKGROUND: In a previous randomised EORTC study on adjuvant dibromodulcitol (DBD) and bichloroethylnitrosourea (BCNU) in adults with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and anaplastic astrocytoma (AA), a clinically significant trend towards a longer overall survival (OS) and a progression-free survival (PFS) was observed in the subgroup of AA. The aim of the present study was to test this adjuvant regimen in a larger number of AA patients. METHODS: Continuation of the previous phase III trial for newly diagnosed AA according to the local pathologist. Patients were randomised to either radiotherapy only or to radiotherapy in combination with BCNU on day 2 and weekly DBD, followed by adjuvant DBD and BCNU in cycles of six weeks for a maximum total treatment duration of one year. OS was the primary end-point. RESULTS: Patients (193 ) with newly diagnosed AA according to local pathological assessment were randomised to radiotherapy (RT) alone (n=99), or to RT plus DBD/BCNU (n=94); 12 patients were considered not eligible. At central pathology review, over half (53%) of the locally diagnosed AA cases could not be confirmed. On intent-to-treat analysis, no statistically significant differences in OS (p=0.111) and PFS (p=0.087) were observed, median OS after RT was only 23.9 months 95% confidence interval (CI), [18.4-34.0] after RT plus DBD/BCNU 27.3 months 95% CI [21.4-46.8]. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant improvement in survival was observed after BCNU/DBD adjuvant chemotherapy in AA patients. The trend towards improved survival is consistent with previous reports. Central pathology review of grade 3 tumours remains crucial.

Protocol for a systematic review on the extent of non-publication of research studies and associated study characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Methodological research has found that non-published studies often have different results than those that are published, a phenomenon known as publication bias. When results are not published, or are published selectively based on the direction or the strength of the findings, healthcare professionals and consumers of healthcare cannot base their decision-making on the full body of current evidence. METHODS: As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:1. To determine the proportion and/or rate of non-publication of studies by systematically reviewing methodological research projects that followed up a cohort of studies that a. received research ethics committee (REC) approval,b. were registered in trial registries, orc. were presented as abstracts at conferences.2. To assess the association of study characteristics (for example, direction and/or strength of findings) with likelihood of full publication.To identify reports of relevant methodological research projects we will conduct electronic database searches, check reference lists, and contact experts. Published and unpublished projects will be included. The inclusion criteria are as follows:a. RECs: methodological research projects that examined the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies that received approval from RECs;b. Trial registries: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies registered in trial registries;c. Conference abstracts: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of full publication of studies which were initially presented at conferences as abstracts.Primary outcomes: Proportion/rate of published studies; time to full publication (mean/median; cumulative publication rate by time).Secondary outcomes: Association of study characteristics with full publication.The different questions (a, b, and c) will be investigated separately. Data synthesis will involve a combination of descriptive and statistical summaries of the included methodological research projects. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013.

Uses of cancer registries for public health and clinical research in Europe : results of the European Network of Cancer Registries survey among 161 population-based cancer registries during 2010-2012

AIM: To provide insight into cancer registration coverage, data access and use in Europe. This contributes to data and infrastructure harmonisation and will foster a more prominent role of cancer registries (CRs) within public health, clinical policy and cancer research, whether within or outside the European Research Area. METHODS: During 2010-12 an extensive survey of cancer registration practices and data use was conducted among 161 population-based CRs across Europe. Responding registries (66%) operated in 33 countries, including 23 with national coverage. RESULTS: Population-based oncological surveillance started during the 1940-50s in the northwest of Europe and from the 1970s to 1990s in other regions. The European Union (EU) protection regulations affected data access, especially in Germany and France, but less in the Netherlands or Belgium. Regular reports were produced by CRs on incidence rates (95%), survival (60%) and stage for selected tumours (80%). Evaluation of cancer control and quality of care remained modest except in a few dedicated CRs. Variables evaluated were support of clinical audits, monitoring adherence to clinical guidelines, improvement of cancer care and evaluation of mass cancer screening. Evaluation of diagnostic imaging tools was only occasional. CONCLUSION: Most population-based CRs are well equipped for strengthening cancer surveillance across Europe. Data quality and intensity of use depend on the role the cancer registry plays in the politico, oncomedical and public health setting within the country. Standard registration methodology could therefore not be translated to equivalent advances in cancer prevention and mass screening, quality of care, translational research of prognosis and survivorship across Europe. Further European collaboration remains essential to ensure access to data and comparability of the results.

Evaluation du risque de récidive dans les expertises pénales: quels outils? Quets indicateurs? Quelles pratiques [Risk assessment in forensic psychiatric reports: what kind assessment instrument? What indicator? What practical?].

Here we present results of studies conducted by the Research Unit of Legal Psychiatry and Psychology of Lausanne about risk assessment and protective factors in the evaluation of violence recidivism. It aims to help experts in considering the relevance and use of tools at their disposal. Particular attention is given to the significance of protective factors and impulsive dimensions, as to the inter-raters process that leads to the final deliberations.