The induction of mental and contact contamination

Background: Extreme fear of contamination within Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is traditionally conceptualised as a physical phenomenon. More recent research has supported the notion of ‘mental’ contamination, in which people feel contaminated in the absence of physical contact. The current research sought to determine whether feelings of contact and mental contamination could be induced within a non-clinical sample, whether the impact of mental and contact contamination was comparable in terms of associated feelings and behaviour and whether related psychopathology related to the impact of the tasks. Methods: Undergraduate students (n=60) completed OCD relevant measures and were randomly assigned to either a contact contamination condition (CC: moving a bucket of fake vomit) or a mental contamination condition (MC: thinking about a bucket of vomit). Results: Both manipulations induced feelings of contamination. Participants in the contact condition had significantly greater urges to wash than those in the mental condition. Neutralising behaviour did not differ across conditions. Conclusions: Feelings of contamination can be induced in the absence of physical contact and for those in the MC group, some aspects of OCD-relevant psychopathology were related to the impact of the manipulation. These findings have implications for the understanding and treatment of contamination-related fears in OCD.

RMetS special interest group meeting: high resolution data assimilation

Data assimilation (DA) systems are evolving to meet the demands of convection-permitting models in the field of weather forecasting. On 19 April 2013 a special interest group meeting of the Royal Meteorological Society brought together UK researchers looking at different aspects of the data assimilation problem at high resolution, from theory to applications, and researchers creating our future high resolution observational networks. The meeting was chaired by Dr Sarah Dance of the University of Reading and Dr Cristina Charlton-Perez from the MetOffice@Reading. The purpose of the meeting was to help define the current state of high resolution data assimilation in the UK. The workshop assembled three main types of scientists: observational network specialists, operational numerical weather prediction researchers and those developing the fundamental mathematical theory behind data assimilation and the underlying models. These three working areas are intrinsically linked; therefore, a holistic view must be taken when discussing the potential to make advances in high resolution data assimilation.

An investigation of the shortcomings of the CONSORT 2010 statement for the reporting of group sequential randomised controlled trials: a methodological systematic review

Background It can be argued that adaptive designs are underused in clinical research. We have explored concerns related to inadequate reporting of such trials, which may influence their uptake. Through a careful examination of the literature, we evaluated the standards of reporting of group sequential (GS) randomised controlled trials, one form of a confirmatory adaptive design. Methods We undertook a systematic review, by searching Ovid MEDLINE from the 1st January 2001 to 23rd September 2014, supplemented with trials from an audit study. We included parallel group, confirmatory, GS trials that were prospectively designed using a Frequentist approach. Eligible trials were examined for compliance in their reporting against the CONSORT 2010 checklist. In addition, as part of our evaluation, we developed a supplementary checklist to explicitly capture group sequential specific reporting aspects, and investigated how these are currently being reported. Results Of the 284 screened trials, 68(24%) were eligible. Most trials were published in “high impact” peer-reviewed journals. Examination of trials established that 46(68%) were stopped early, predominantly either for futility or efficacy. Suboptimal reporting compliance was found in general items relating to: access to full trials protocols; methods to generate randomisation list(s); details of randomisation concealment, and its implementation. Benchmarking against the supplementary checklist, GS aspects were largely inadequately reported. Only 3(7%) trials which stopped early reported use of statistical bias correction. Moreover, 52(76%) trials failed to disclose methods used to minimise the risk of operational bias, due to the knowledge or leakage of interim results. Occurrence of changes to trial methods and outcomes could not be determined in most trials, due to inaccessible protocols and amendments. Discussion and Conclusions There are issues with the reporting of GS trials, particularly those specific to the conduct of interim analyses. Suboptimal reporting of bias correction methods could potentially imply most GS trials stopping early are giving biased results of treatment effects. As a result, research consumers may question credibility of findings to change practice when trials are stopped early. These issues could be alleviated through a CONSORT extension. Assurance of scientific rigour through transparent adequate reporting is paramount to the credibility of findings from adaptive trials. Our systematic literature search was restricted to one database due to resource constraints.