Uses of isotopes in medical research, diagnosis and therapy.

Mode of access: Internet.

The Journal of medical research.

Vols. 6-44 also called new ser. v. 1-39.

Monographs of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.

No. 6 is reprinted in Rockefeller University. Studies. Vol. 25.

Studies from the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. Reprints.

Part of the illustrative material is folded.

Thomas Henry Simpson Memorial Institute of Medical Research

Albert Kahn, architect

Studies from the Institute for Medical Research, Federated Malay States

Mode of access: Internet.

Medical research in the Veterans' Administration.

Latest issue consulted: 1973/74.

Annual report of the Institute for Medical Research.

Description based on: 13th (1913).

Anticholinergic medication use and cognitive impairment in the older population:the Medical Research Council cognitive function and ageing study

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the use of medications with possible and definite anticholinergic activity increases the risk of cognitive impairment and mortality in older people and whether risk is cumulative. DESIGN: A 2-year longitudinal study of participants enrolled in the Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study between 1991 and 1993. SETTING: Community-dwelling and institutionalized participants. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen thousand four participants aged 65 and older. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline use of possible or definite anticholinergics determined according to the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale and cognition determined using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). The main outcome measure was decline in the MMSE score at 2 years. RESULTS: At baseline, 47% of the population used a medication with possible anticholinergic properties, and 4% used a drug with definite anticholinergic properties. After adjusting for age, sex, educational level, social class, number of nonanticholinergic medications, number of comorbid health conditions, and cognitive performance at baseline, use of medication with definite anticholinergic effects was associated with a 0.33-point greater decline in MMSE score (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.03–0.64, P=.03) than not taking anticholinergics, whereas the use of possible anticholinergics at baseline was not associated with further decline (0.02, 95% CI=-0.14–0.11, P=.79). Two-year mortality was greater for those taking definite (OR=1.68; 95% CI=1.30–2.16; P<.001) and possible (OR=1.56; 95% CI=1.36–1.79; P<.001) anticholinergics. CONCLUSION: The use of medications with anticholinergic activity increases the cumulative risk of cognitive impairment and mortality.

AIDS benefit at Madison Square Garden with Mayor Ed Koch speaking to audience in support of AIDS medical research

General note: Title provided by Bettye Lane.

Diffusing research into routine midwifery practice

This research applied Greenhalgh et al's (2005) organisational change theoretical framework and a case study method approach to explore the process of implementing a smoking cessation intervention for pregnant women. The study was carried out according to the principles laid down in the National statement on ethical conduct in human research, produced by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. Ethical approval for the research was sought and received from Queensland University of Technology human research ethics committee, prior to the start of the study. The sample constituted four participants who had been involved in the process of disseminating a training programme for midwives to implement a smoking cessation intervention. Eight semi-structured interviews were undertaken with these participants and the interviews and background programme data were subjected to theoretical analysis. The data were analysed through the lens of the Greenhalgh et al (2005) framework. The result was a disaggregation and (re)aggregation of data in the formation of an analytical outcome (Charmaz, 2006).

Systematic review and metasummary of attitudes toward research in emergency medical conditions

Emergency departments are challenging research settings, where truly informed consent can be difficult to obtain. A deeper understanding of emergency medical patients' opinions about research is needed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-summary of quantitative and qualitative studies on which values, attitudes, or beliefs of emergent medical research participants influence research participation. We included studies of adults that investigated opinions toward emergency medicine research participation. We excluded studies focused on the association between demographics or consent document features and participation and those focused on non-emergency research. In August 2011, we searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Scirus, PsycINFO, AgeLine and Global Health. Titles, abstracts and then full manuscripts were independently evaluated by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by consensus and adjudicated by a third author. Studies were evaluated for bias using standardised scores. We report themes associated with participation or refusal. Our initial search produced over 1800 articles. A total of 44 articles were extracted for full-manuscript analysis, and 14 were retained based on our eligibility criteria. Among factors favouring participation, altruism and personal health benefit had the highest frequency. Mistrust of researchers, feeling like a 'guinea pig' and risk were leading factors favouring refusal. Many studies noted limitations of informed consent processes in emergent conditions. We conclude that highlighting the benefits to the participant and society, mitigating risk and increasing public trust may increase research participation in emergency medical research. New methods for conducting informed consent in such studies are needed.

ASSESSING THE UNRELIABILITY OF THE MEDICAL LITERATURE: A RESPONSE TO "WHY MOST PUBLISHED RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE FALSE"

A recent article in this journal (Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124) argued that more than half of published research findings in the medical literature are false. In this commentary, we examine the structure of that argument, and show that it has three basic components: 1)An assumption that the prior probability of most hypotheses explored in medical research is below 50%. 2)Dichotomization of P-values at the 0.05 level and introduction of a “bias” factor (produced by significance-seeking), the combination of which severely weakens the evidence provided by every design. 3)Use of Bayes theorem to show that, in the face of weak evidence, hypotheses with low prior probabilities cannot have posterior probabilities over 50%. Thus, the claim is based on a priori assumptions that most tested hypotheses are likely to be false, and then the inferential model used makes it impossible for evidence from any study to overcome this handicap. We focus largely on step (2), explaining how the combination of dichotomization and “bias” dilutes experimental evidence, and showing how this dilution leads inevitably to the stated conclusion. We also demonstrate a fallacy in another important component of the argument –that papers in “hot” fields are more likely to produce false findings. We agree with the paper’s conclusions and recommendations that many medical research findings are less definitive than readers suspect, that P-values are widely misinterpreted, that bias of various forms is widespread, that multiple approaches are needed to prevent the literature from being systematically biased and the need for more data on the prevalence of false claims. But calculating the unreliability of the medical research literature, in whole or in part, requires more empirical evidence and different inferential models than were used. The claim that “most research findings are false for most research designs and for most fields” must be considered as yet unproven.

Effects of congressional modernization laws on public access to innovative medical device technologies

The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) play key roles in making Class III, medical devices available to the public, and they are required by law to meet statutory deadlines for applications under review. Historically, both agencies have failed to meet their respective statutory requirements. Since these failures affect patient access and may adversely impact public health, Congress has enacted several “modernization” laws. However, the effectiveness of these modernization laws has not been adequately studied or established for Class III medical devices. ^ The aim of this research study was, therefore, to analyze how these modernization laws may have affected public access to medical devices. Two questions were addressed: (1) How have the FDA modernization laws affected the time to approval for medical device premarket approval applications (PMAs)? (2) How has the CMS modernization law affected the time to approval for national coverage decisions (NCDs)? The data for this research study were collected from publicly available databases for the period January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2008. These dates were selected to ensure that a sufficient period of time was captured to measure pre- and post-modernization effects on time to approval. All records containing original PMAs were obtained from the FDA database, and all records containing NCDs were obtained from the CMS database. Source documents, including FDA premarket approval letters and CMS national coverage decision memoranda, were reviewed to obtain additional data not found in the search results. Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of the pre- and post-modernization laws on time to approval. Secondary analyses of FDA subcategories were conducted to uncover any causal factors that might explain differences in time to approval and to compare with the primary trends. The primary analysis showed that the FDA modernization laws of 1997 and 2002 initially reduced PMA time to approval; after the 2002 modernization law, the time to approval began increasing and continued to increase through December 2008. The non-combined, subcategory approval trends were similar to the primary analysis trends. The combined, subcategory analysis showed no clear trends with the exception of non-implantable devices, for which time to approval trended down after 1997. The CMS modernization law of 2003 reduced NCD time to approval, a trend that continued through December 2008. This study also showed that approximately 86% of PMA devices do not receive NCDs. ^ As a result of this research study, recommendations are offered to help resolve statutory non-compliance and access issues, as follows: (1) Authorities should examine underlying causal factors for the observed trends; (2) Process improvements should be made to better coordinate FDA and CMS activities to include sharing data, reducing duplication, and establishing clear criteria for “safe and effective” and “reasonable and necessary”; (3) A common identifier should be established to allow tracking and trending of applications between FDA and CMS databases; (4) Statutory requirements may need to be revised; and (5) An investigation should be undertaken to determine why NCDs are not issued for the majority of PMAs. Any process improvements should be made without creating additional safety risks and adversely impacting public health. Finally, additional studies are needed to fully characterize and better understand the trends identified in this research study.^