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.

Orthopedic implant used as drug delivery system: clinical situation and state of the research.

A partial review is proposed on the existing literature for the research performed in orthopedic implant used as drug delivery system. In the first part, an evaluation is given on the clinical need to deliver a drug in the surrounding of an implant. Secondly, a review of the clinical situation is developed for implants already used as drug delivery system. Experimental works performed for local delivery are reported. In particular, a description is given on the in vitro and in vivo studies where the implant is coated with different proteins or drugs. Finally, a conclusion is proposed on the next step in the development of orthopedic implant as drug delivery system mentioning also the industrial situation.

Fate of clinical research studies after ethical approval--follow-up of study protocols until publication.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical studies are ultimately not fully published in peer-reviewed journals. Underreporting of clinical research is wasteful and can result in biased estimates of treatment effect or harm, leading to recommendations that are inappropriate or even dangerous. METHODS: We assembled a cohort of clinical studies approved 2000-2002 by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Freiburg, Germany. Published full articles were searched in electronic databases and investigators contacted. Data on study characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications. We characterized the cohort, quantified its publication outcome and compared protocols and publications for selected aspects. RESULTS: Of 917 approved studies, 807 were started and 110 were not, either locally or as a whole. Of the started studies, 576 (71%) were completed according to protocol, 128 (16%) discontinued and 42 (5%) are still ongoing; for 61 (8%) there was no information about their course. We identified 782 full publications corresponding to 419 of the 807 initiated studies; the publication proportion was 52% (95% CI: 0.48-0.55). Study design was not significantly associated with subsequent publication. Multicentre status, international collaboration, large sample size and commercial or non-commercial funding were positively associated with subsequent publication. Commercial funding was mentioned in 203 (48%) protocols and in 205 (49%) of the publications. In most published studies (339; 81%) this information corresponded between protocol and publication. Most studies were published in English (367; 88%); some in German (25; 6%) or both languages (27; 6%). The local investigators were listed as (co-)authors in the publications corresponding to 259 (62%) studies. CONCLUSION: Half of the clinical research conducted at a large German university medical centre remains unpublished; future research is built on an incomplete database. Research resources are likely wasted as neither health care professionals nor patients nor policy makers can use the results when making decisions.

Quality of Qualitative Research in the Health Sciences : Analysis of the Common Criteria Present in 58 Assessment Guidelines by Expert Users

The number of qualitative research methods has grown substantially over the last twenty years, both in social sciences and, more recently, in the health sciences. This growth came with questions on the quality criteria needed to evaluate this work, and numerous guidelines were published. The latters include many discrepancies though, both in their vocabulary and construction. Many expert evaluators decry the absence of consensual and reliable evaluation tools. The authors present the results of an evaluation of 58 existing guidelines in 4 major health science fields (medicine and epidemiology; nursing and health education; social sciences and public health; psychology / psychiatry, research methods and organization) by expert users (article reviewers, experts allocating funds, editors, etc.). The results propose a toolbox containing 12 consensual criteria with the definitions given by expert users. They also indicate in which disciplinary field each type of criteria is known to be more or less essential. Nevertheless, the authors highlight the limitations of the criteria comparability, as soon as one focuses on their specific definitions. They conclude that each criterion in the toolbox must be explained to come to broader consensus and identify definitions that are consensual to all the fields examined and easily operational.

Complexity of the Paradigms Present in Quality Criteria of Qualitative Research Grids

With qualitative methods being increasingly used in health science fields, numerous grids proposing criteria to evaluate the quality of this type of research have been produced. Expert evaluators deem that there is a lack of consensual tools to evaluate qualitative research. Based on the review of 133 quality criteria grids for qualitative research in health sciences, the authors present the results of a computerized lexicometric analysis, which confirms the variety of intra- and inter-grid constructions, including within the same field. This variety is linked to the authors' paradigmatic references underlying the criteria proposed. These references seem to be built intuitively, reflecting internal representations of qualitative research, thus making the grids and their criteria hard to compare. Consequently, the consensus on the definitions and the number of criteria becomes problematic. The paradigmatic and theoretical references of the grids should be specified so that users could better assess their contributions and limitations.

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies, and to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to defining (non-) dissemination of research findings. SETTING: We performed a scoping review of definitions of the term 'publication bias' in highly cited publications. PARTICIPANTS: Ideas and experiences of a core group of authors were collected in a draft document, which was complemented by the findings from our literature search. INTERVENTIONS: The draft document including findings from the literature search was circulated to an international group of experts and revised until no additional ideas emerged and consensus was reached. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: We propose a new approach to the comprehensive conceptualisation of (non-) dissemination of research. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Our 'What, Who and Why?' approach includes issues that need to be considered when disseminating research findings (What?), the different players who should assume responsibility during the various stages of conducting a clinical trial and disseminating clinical trial documents (Who?), and motivations that might lead the various players to disseminate findings selectively, thereby introducing bias in the dissemination process (Why?). CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive framework of (non-) dissemination of research findings, based on the results of a scoping literature search and expert consensus will facilitate the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the multifaceted issue of selective publication, historically referred to as 'publication bias'.