Marine Biosilica as a Tool to Understand the Therapeutic Benefit of Silica in Bone Repair

It is widely accepted that silicon-substituted materials enhance bone formation, yet the mechanism by which this occurs is poorly understood. This work investigates the potential of using diatom frustules to answer on fundamental questions surrounding the role of silica in bone healing. Biosilica with frustules 20m were isolated from Cyclotella meneghiniana a unicellular microalgae that was sourced from the Mississippi River, USA. Silanisation chemistry was used to modify the surface of C. meneghiniana with amine (–NH2) and thiol (–SH) terminated silanes. Untreated frustules and both functionalised groups were soaked in culture medium for 24hrs. Following the culture period, frustules were separated from the conditioned medium by centrifugation and both were tested separately in vitro for cytotoxicity using murine-monocyte macrophage (J774) cell line. Cytotoxicity was measured using LDH release to measure damage to cell membrane, MTS to measure cell viability and live-dead staining. The expression and release of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6 and TNF) were measured using ELISA. Our results found that diatom frustules and those functionalised with amino groups showed no cytotoxicity or elevated cytokine release. Diatom frustules functionalised with thiol groups showed higher levels of cytotoxicity. Diatom frustules and those functionalised with amino groups were taken forward to an in vivo mouse toxicity model, whereby the immunological response, organ toxicity and route of metabolism/excretion of silica were investigated. Histological results showed no organ toxicity in any of the groups relative to control. Analysis of blood Si levels suggests that modified frustules are metabolised quicker than functionalised frustules, suggesting that physiochemical attributes influence their biodistribution. Our results show that diatom frustules are non cytotoxic and are promising materials to better understand the role of silica in bone healing.

Towards core outcome set (COS) development: a follow-up descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND: A core outcome set (COS) can address problems of outcome heterogeneity and outcome reporting bias in trials and systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews, helping to reduce waste. One of the aims of the international Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative is to link the development and use of COS with the outcomes specified and reported in Cochrane reviews, including the outcomes listed in the summary of findings (SoF) tables. As part of this work, an earlier exploratory survey of the outcomes of newly published 2007 and 2011 Cochrane reviews was performed. This survey examined the use of COS, the variety of specified outcomes, and outcome reporting in Cochrane reviews by Cochrane Review Group (CRG). To examine changes over time and to explore outcomes that were repeatedly specified over time in Cochrane reviews by CRG, we conducted a follow-up survey of outcomes in 2013 Cochrane reviews.

METHODS: A descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews that were first published in 2013. Outcomes specified in the methods sections and reported in the results section of the Cochrane reviews were examined by CRG. We also explored the uptake of SoF tables, the number of outcomes included in these, and the quality of the evidence for the outcomes.

RESULTS: Across the 50 CRGs, 375 Cochrane reviews that included at least one study specified a total of 3142 outcomes. Of these outcomes, 32 % (1008) were not reported in the results section of these reviews. For 23 % (233) of these non-reported outcomes, we did not find any reason in the text of the review for this non-report. Fifty-seven percent (216/375) of reviews included a SoF table.

CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of specified outcomes that were reported in Cochrane reviews had increased in 2013 (68 %) compared to 2007 (61 %) and 2011 (65 %). Importantly, 2013 Cochrane reviews that did not report specified outcomes were twice as likely to provide an explanation for why the outcome was not reported. There has been an increased uptake of SoF tables in Cochrane reviews. Outcomes that were repeatedly specified in Cochrane reviews by CRG in 2007, 2011, and 2013 may assist COS development.

Survey of new 2007 and 2011 Cochrane reviews found 37% of prespecified outcomes not reported

OBJECTIVES: To survey the outcomes used in Cochrane Reviews, as part of our work within the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A descriptive survey of Cochrane Reviews, divided by Cochrane Review Group (CRG), published in full for the first time in 2007 and 2011. Outcomes specified in the methods section of each review and outcomes reported in the results section of each review were of interest, in this exploration of the common use of outcomes and core outcome sets (COS).

RESULTS: Seven hundred eighty-eight reviews, specifying 6,127 outcomes, were included. When we excluded specified outcomes from the 86 reviews that did not include any studies, we found that 1,996 (37%) specified outcomes were not reported. Of the 361 new reviews with studies from 2011, 113 (31%) had a "summary of findings" table (SoF). Fifteen broad outcome categories were identified and used to manage the outcome data. We found consistency in the use of these categories across CRGs but inconsistency in outcomes within these categories.

CONCLUSION: COS have been used rarely in Cochrane Reviews, but the introduction of SoF makes the development and application of COS timelier than ever.