Reporting of research quality characteristics of studies published in 6 major clinical dental specialty journals

The objective of this article was to record reporting characteristics related to study quality of research published in major specialty dental journals with the highest impact factor (Journal of Endodontics, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics; Pediatric Dentistry, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, and International Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry). The included articles were classified into the following 3 broad subject categories: (1) cross-sectional (snap-shot), (2) observational, and (3) interventional. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted for effect estimation using the journal as the response and randomization, sample calculation, confounding discussed, multivariate analysis, effect measurement, and confidence intervals as the explanatory variables. The results showed that cross-sectional studies were the dominant design (55%), whereas observational investigations accounted for 13%, and interventions/clinical trials for 32%. Reporting on quality characteristics was low for all variables: random allocation (15%), sample size calculation (7%), confounding issues/possible confounders (38%), effect measurements (16%), and multivariate analysis (21%). Eighty-four percent of the published articles reported a statistically significant main finding and only 13% presented confidence intervals. The Journal of Clinical Periodontology showed the highest probability of including quality characteristics in reporting results among all dental journals.

Making research relevant to policy-makers, development actors, and local communities: NCCR North-South report on effectiveness of research for development

Bridging the gap between research and policy is of growing importance in international development. The National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South has rich experience in collaborating beyond academic boundaries to make their research relevant to various societal actors. This publication is the first to provide an overview of the effectiveness of NCCR North-South researchers’ efforts to interact with policy, practice, and local communities with a view to effecting a change in practices. A systematic assessment of researchers’ interactions with non-academic partners is presented, based on principles of monitoring and evaluation. On this basis, tools for collective learning and widespread adaptation are proposed. The report shows with what types of societal actors NCCR North-South researchers collaborate and analyses examples of how researchers conduct dialogue beyond academic boundaries, leading to specific outcomes. It also explains the frame conditions considered decisive for successful and sustainable policy dialogue and concludes with recommendations about how the NCCR North-South can increase the effectiveness of its research for development. The publication is a valuable source of inspiration for those interested in better understanding how to generate the multiple benefits of making science relevant to society.

Future trials of endovascular mechanical recanalisation therapy in acute ischemic stroke patients - A position paper endorsed by ESMINT and ESNR : Part II: methodology of future trials

Based on current data and experience, the joint working group of the European Society of Minimally Invasive Neurological Therapy (ESMINT) and the European Society of Neuroradiology (ESNR) make suggestions on trial design and conduct aimed to investigate therapeutic effects of mechanical thrombectomy (MT). We anticipate that this roadmap will facilitate the setting up and conduct of successful trials in close collaboration with our neighbouring disciplines.

Bibliographic study showed improving methodology of meta-analyses published in leading journals 1993-2002

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodology of meta-analyses published in leading general and specialist medical journals over a 10-year period. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Volumes 1993-2002 of four general medicine journals and four specialist journals were searched by hand for meta-analyses including at least five controlled trials. Characteristics were assessed using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 272 meta-analyses, which included a median of 11 trials (range 5-195), were assessed. Most (81%) were published in general medicine journals. The median (range) number of databases searched increased from 1 (1-9) in 1993/1994 to 3.5 (1-21) in 2001/2002, P<0.0001. The proportion of meta-analyses including searches by hand (10% in 1993/1994, 25% in 2001/2002, P=0.005), searches of the grey literature (29%, 51%, P=0.010 by chi-square test), and of trial registers (10%, 32%, P=0.025) also increased. Assessments of the quality of trials also became more common (45%, 70%, P=0.008), including whether allocation of patients to treatment groups had been concealed (24%, 60%, P=0.001). The methodological and reporting quality was consistently higher in general medicine compared to specialist journals. CONCLUSION: Many meta-analyses published in leading journals have important methodological limitations. The situation has improved in recent years but considerable room for further improvements remains.

Maximising the impact of research: the NCCR North-South approach: Fourth NCCR North-South Report on Effectiveness

Interest is growing in the impact that science can have on reducing poverty in the global South. If we understand impact as the “demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy”, the concept encompasses a variety of contributions of research-related knowledge and skills that benefit people and the environment. One reason for the growing interest in impact in this context is research councils’ increasing focus on documenting the social and environmental benefits of science, as indicated by the above quotation from the British research councils. Another reason is that research funding agencies from the private and public sectors are now more interested in social innovations for solving problems on the ground. Research can indeed influence policymakers’ views, policy development, funding patterns, and implementation or practice. This is promising for those who would like to improve – and prove – the influence research can have on policy and practice. It is also of importance for better understanding the intended and unintended effects of research. This report presents the NCCR North-South approach to increasing the impact of development-oriented research. It explains how we can maximise our impact and how we can assess whether our efforts have worked, based on six case studies from around the world. The report is of interest to all researchers who wish to respond to policy and practice from their point of view and who are keen on publicising their evidence. It is also relevant to those who teach how to maximise research impact.