Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for respondent-driven sampling studies: "STROBE-RDS" statement.

OBJECTIVES Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a new data collection methodology used to estimate characteristics of hard-to-reach groups, such as the HIV prevalence in drug users. Many national public health systems and international organizations rely on RDS data. However, RDS reporting quality and available reporting guidelines are inadequate. We carried out a systematic review of RDS studies and present Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for RDS Studies (STROBE-RDS), a checklist of essential items to present in RDS publications, justified by an explanation and elaboration document. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched the MEDLINE (1970-2013), EMBASE (1974-2013), and Global Health (1910-2013) databases to assess the number and geographical distribution of published RDS studies. STROBE-RDS was developed based on STROBE guidelines, following Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. RESULTS RDS has been used in over 460 studies from 69 countries, including the USA (151 studies), China (70), and India (32). STROBE-RDS includes modifications to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The two key areas that required modification concerned the selection of participants and statistical analysis of the sample. CONCLUSION STROBE-RDS seeks to enhance the transparency and utility of research using RDS. If widely adopted, STROBE-RDS should improve global infectious diseases public health decision making.

An analysis of protocols and publications suggested that most discontinuations of clinical trials were not based on preplanned interim analyses or stopping rules.

OBJECTIVES To investigate the frequency of interim analyses, stopping rules, and data safety and monitoring boards (DSMBs) in protocols of randomized controlled trials (RCTs); to examine these features across different reasons for trial discontinuation; and to identify discrepancies in reporting between protocols and publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We used data from a cohort of RCT protocols approved between 2000 and 2003 by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. RESULTS Of 894 RCT protocols, 289 prespecified interim analyses (32.3%), 153 stopping rules (17.1%), and 257 DSMBs (28.7%). Overall, 249 of 894 RCTs (27.9%) were prematurely discontinued; mostly due to reasons such as poor recruitment, administrative reasons, or unexpected harm. Forty-six of 249 RCTs (18.4%) were discontinued due to early benefit or futility; of those, 37 (80.4%) were stopped outside a formal interim analysis or stopping rule. Of 515 published RCTs, there were discrepancies between protocols and publications for interim analyses (21.1%), stopping rules (14.4%), and DSMBs (19.6%). CONCLUSION Two-thirds of RCT protocols did not consider interim analyses, stopping rules, or DSMBs. Most RCTs discontinued for early benefit or futility were stopped without a prespecified mechanism. When assessing trial manuscripts, journals should require access to the protocol.

Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials.

BACKGROUND Information about the impact of cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL) is of paramount importance to patients and treating oncologists. Cancer trials that do not specify QoL as an outcome or fail to report collected QoL data, omit crucial information for decision making. To estimate the magnitude of these problems, we investigated how frequently QoL outcomes were specified in protocols of cancer trials and subsequently reported. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study of RCT protocols approved by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We compared protocols to corresponding publications, which were identified through literature searches and investigator surveys. RESULTS Of the 173 cancer trials, 90 (52%) specified QoL outcomes in their protocol, 2 (1%) as primary and 88 (51%) as secondary outcome. Of the 173 trials, 35 (20%) reported QoL outcomes in a corresponding publication (4 modified from the protocol), 18 (10%) were published but failed to report QoL outcomes in the primary or a secondary publication, and 37 (21%) were not published at all. Of the 83 (48%) trials that did not specify QoL outcomes in their protocol, none subsequently reported QoL outcomes. Failure to report pre-specified QoL outcomes was not associated with industry sponsorship (versus non-industry), sample size, and multicentre (versus single centre) status but possibly with trial discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS About half of cancer trials specified QoL outcomes in their protocols. However, only 20% reported any QoL data in associated publications. Highly relevant information for decision making is often unavailable to patients, oncologists, and health policymakers.

New Sites, New Challenges? Ethical and Methodological Questions in the Context of Research on Migration Exclusion

The challenges of research ethics and methodologies have been reflected on extensively, but – aside from the context of feminist methodologies – less so in relation to research on particular migration sites such as in transit, detention centres, at the borders or within migration administration. First attempts in this direction have been made (Düvell et al. 2010, Fresia et al. 2005, Riedner 2014, van Liempt/Bilger2009), however, more reflection and theorization is needed, considering the contested nature of these temporal and volatile sites. In this workshop, we thus aim at examining methodological as well as ethical questions that arise during field work: We attempt to reflect the power relations involved in the research process, the ethics of research design, the dissemination of research results, the question of gaining access to and – whenever necessary – staying in contact with our research subjects. How can we negotiate informed consent with subjects whose life is currently marked by transit and insecurity concerning their own future, and who are in an uncertain situation in which substantial information (legal, social, cultural etc.) is likely to be missing? How do we deal with the dilemma of possibly contributing to knowledge production that might facilitate removals and deportations in the future, considering that the reception of the results is not in the hands of the researchers? How do we deal with the anticipated as well as unexpected impacts of our research on social and political practice? Regarding fieldwork in state institutions, how do we negotiate the multiple loyalties we often find ourselves faced with as social researchers, both with the excluded migrants and with the authorities implementing the exclusions – two groupings considered to be opposite to each other (Lavanchy 2013)? Which different roles do researchers need to take on? The aim of our workshop is first and foremost to exchange experiences on fieldwork with others doing qualitative research on related topics and to consider its possible implications – including affective dimensions – for all participants involved in the research process: the migrants, the security staff of detention centres, its social workers, border police and bureaucrats and, last but not least, the researchers themselves. Furthermore, we generally wish to reflect upon the question of how best to conduct research in this contested field, applying an interdisciplinary perspective.

Non-Viral Gene Therapy to Cells of the bovine Intervertebral Disc

Background. Low back pain is an increasing global health problem, which is associated with intervertebral disc (IVD) damage and degeneration. Major changes occur in the nucleus pulposus (NP), with the degradation of the extracellular matrix (ECM).1 Further studies showed that growth factors from transforming growth factor β (TGFβ) and bone morphogenic proteins (BMP) family may induce chondrogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC).2 Focusing on non-viral gene therapies and their possible translation into the clinics, we investigated if GDF6 (syn. BMP13 or CDMP2) can induce regeneration of degraded NP. We hypothesized that IVD transfected with plasmid over-expressing GDF6 also up-regulates other NP- and chondrogenic cell markers and enhances ECM deposition. Methods. Bovine nucleus pulposus (bNPC) and annulus fibrosus cells (bAFC) were harvested from bovine coccygeal IVD. Primary cells were then electroporized with plasmid GDF6 (Origene, vector RG211366) by optimizing parameters using the Neon Transfection system (Life Technologies, Basel). After transfection, cells were cultured in 2D monolayer or 3D alginate beads for 7, 14 or 21 days. Transfection efficiency of pGDF6 was analyzed by immunohistochemistry and fluorescent microscopy. Cell phenotype was quantified by real-time RT-PCR. To test a non-viral gene therapy applied directly to 3D whole organ culture, coccygeal bovine IVDs were harvested as previously described. Bovine IVDs were transfected by injection of plasmid GDF6 into the center. Electroporation was performed with ECM830 Square Wave Electroporation System (Harvard Apparatus, MA) using 2-needle array electrode or tweezertrodes. 72 h after tranfection discs were fixed and cryosectioned and analyzed by immunofluorescence against GDF6. Results. RT-PCR and immunohistochemistry confirmed up-regulation of GFP and GDF6 in the primary bNPC/bAFC culture. The GFP-tagged GDF6 protein, however, was not visible, possibly due to failure of dimer formation as a result of fusion structure. Organ IVD culture transfection revealed GDF6 positive staining in the center of the disc using 2-needle array electrode. Results from tweezertrodes did not show any GDF6 positive cells. Conclusion. Non-viral transfection is an appealing approach for gene therapy as it fulfills the translational safety aspects of transiency and lacks the toxic effects of viral transduction. We identified novel parameters to successfully transfect primary bovine IVD cells. For transfection of whole IVD explants electroporation parameters need to be further optimized. Acknowledgements. This project was funded by the Lindenhof Foundation (Funds “Research & Teaching”) Project no. 13-02-F. The imaging part of this study was performed with the facility of the Microscopy Imaging Center (MIC), University of Bern. References. Roughly PJ (2004): Spine (Phila), 29:2691-2699 Clarke LE, McConell JC, Sherratt MJ, Derby B, Richardson SM, Hoyland JA (2014), Arthritis Research & Therapy, 16:R67