Measurement Invariance in Intellectual and Developmental Disability Research.

Measurement invariance (MI) is a psychometric property of an instrument indicating the degree to which scores from an instrument are comparable across groups. In recent years, there has been a marked uptick in publications using MI in intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) samples. Our goal here is to provide an overview of why MI is important to IDD researchers and to describe some challenges to evaluating it, with an eye towards nudging our subfield into a more thoughtful and measured interpretation of studies using MI.

Implementation of the EQIPD Quality System.

The EQIPD Quality System (QS) was conceptualized and established by an international consortium consisting of academic and industrial partners to ensure that non-regulated biomedical research will be conducted according to Good Research Practice expectations. The QS supports researchers to reflect on and improve internal practices by providing a systematic framework and guidance for implementing the EQIPD QS in a time and cost effective manner. This report describes the content of the EQIPD QS with its key features and 18 Core Requirements (CR) in more detail. It gives a short background on each CR and hands on examples on how they were addressed by two different research labs in their respective laboratory environments. Thereby, this article provides examples and direction for other research labs who aim to implement the QS as well. The final paragraphs discuss the potential benefits of the QS in respect to different user groups and stakeholders within the scientific community and summarize the overall governance structure of the EQIPD framework.

Translating a Culture of Quality to Clinical Research Conduct: Expanding the Clinical Development Quality Framework.

The International Council on Harmonisation E8 Guidance Revision 1 (ICH E8(R1)) calls for creating a Culture of Quality that "values and rewards critical thinking and open, proactive dialogue about what is critical to quality." Across the biopharma landscape, clinical sites, sponsors, and service providers are working to translate this far-reaching guideline into working practices. This manuscript deconstructs key elements that comprise the critical thinking and open, proactive Culture of Quality "enablers." In addition, maturity models are provided so readers can visualize what a Culture of Quality looks like in their clinical research organization. These provide examples of high performing cultures of quality and useful tools for teams or organizations to measure and evolve their respective quality cultures.

Research integrity and academic medicine: the pressure to publish and research misconduct.

CONTEXT: This narrative review article explores research integrity and the implications of scholarly work in medical education. The paper describes how the current landscape of medical education emphasizes research and scholarly activity for medical students, resident physicians, and faculty physician educators. There is a gap in the existing literature that fully explores research integrity, the challenges surrounding the significant pressure to perform scholarly activity, and the potential for ethical lapses by those involved in medical education. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review article are to provide a background on authorship and publication safeguards, outline common types of research misconduct, describe the implications of publication in medical education, discuss the consequences of ethical breaches, and outline possible solutions to promote research integrity in academic medicine. METHODS: To complete this narrative review, the authors explored the current literature utilizing multiple databases beginning in June of 2021, and they completed the literature review in January of 2023. To capture the wide scope of the review, numerous searches were performed. A number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were utilized to identify relevant articles. The MeSH terms included "scientific misconduct," "research misconduct," "authorship," "plagiarism," "biomedical research/ethics," "faculty, medical," "fellowships and scholarships," and "internship and residency." Additional references were accessed to include medical school and residency accreditation standards, residency match statistics, regulatory guidelines, and standard definitions. RESULTS: Within the realm of academic medicine, research misconduct and misrepresentation continue to occur without clear solutions. There is a wide range of severity in breaches of research integrity, ranging from minor infractions to fraud. Throughout the medical education system in the United States, there is pressure to publish research and scholarly work. Higher rates of publications are associated with a successful residency match for students and academic promotion for faculty physicians. For those who participate in research misconduct, there is a multitude of potential adverse consequences. Potential solutions to ensure research integrity exist but are not without barriers to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Pressure in the world of academic medicine to publish contributes to the potential for research misconduct and authorship misrepresentation. Lapses in research integrity can result in a wide range of potentially adverse consequences for the offender, their institution, the scientific community, and the public. If adopted, universal research integrity policies and procedures could make major strides in eliminating research misconduct in the realm of academic medicine.

Virology-the path forward.

In the United States (US), biosafety and biosecurity oversight of research on viruses is being reappraised. Safety in virology research is paramount and oversight frameworks should be reviewed periodically. Changes should be made with care, however, to avoid impeding science that is essential for rapidly reducing and responding to pandemic threats as well as addressing more common challenges caused by infectious diseases. Decades of research uniquely positioned the US to be able to respond to the COVID-19 crisis with astounding speed, delivering life-saving vaccines within a year of identifying the virus. We should embolden and empower this strength, which is a vital part of protecting the health, economy, and security of US citizens. Herein, we offer our perspectives on priorities for revised rules governing virology research in the US.

Coproducing health research with Indigenous peoples.

The coproduction of health research represents an important advance in the realm of participatory methodologies, which have evolved over the past five decades. This transition to a collaborative approach emphasizes shared control between academic researchers and their partners, fostering a more balanced influence on the research process. This shift not only enhances the quality of the research and the evidence generated, but also increases the likelihood of successful implementation. For Indigenous peoples, coproduced research represents a critical development, enabling a shift from being mere 'subjects' of research to being active controllers of the process-including addressing the extractive and oppressive practices of the past. In this Review, we explore how research coproduction with Indigenous peoples is evolving. An 'Indigenous turn' embraces the concept of shared control while also considering the principles of reciprocity, the incommensurability of Western and Indigenous knowledge systems, divergent ethical standards, strategic and political differences, and the broader impact of processes and outcomes. To illustrate these ideas, we present examples involving New Zealand's Maori communities and offer recommendations for further progress.

Promoting Data Harmonization of COVID-19 Research in Pregnant and Pediatric Populations.

This Viewpoint investigates the use of common data elements to promote data harmonization in COVID-19­related studies of pediatric and pregnant populations.

Responding to the Call to Meaningfully Assess Institutional Review Board Effectiveness.

This Viewpoint discusses the difficult task of creating a stakeholder-driven, evidence-based approach to assessing institutional review board effectiveness beyond regulatory compliance.

A patient advocating for transparent science in rare disease research.

300 million people live with at least one of 6,000 rare diseases worldwide. However, rare disease research is not always reviewed with scrutiny, making it susceptible to what the author refers to as nontransparent science. Nontransparent science can obscure animal model flaws, misguide medicine regulators and drug developers, delay or frustrate orphan drug development, or waste limited resources for rare disease research. Flawed animal models not only lack pharmacologic relevance, but also give rise to issue of clinical translatability. Sadly, these consequences and risks are grossly overlooked. Nontransparency in science can take many forms, such as premature publication of animal models without clinically significant data, not providing corrections when flaws to the model are discovered, lack of warning of critical study limitations, missing critical control data, questionable data quality, surprising results without a sound explanation, failure to rule out potential factors which may affect study conclusions, lack of sufficient detail for others to replicate the study, dubious authorship and study accountability. Science has no boarders, neither does nontransparent science. Nontransparent science can happen irrespective of the researcher's senority, institutional affiliation or country. As a patient-turned researcher suffering from Bietti crystalline dystrophy (BCD), I use BCD as an example to analyze various forms of nontransparent science in rare disease research. This article analyzes three papers published by different research groups on Cyp4v3-/-, high-fat diet (HFD)-Cyp4v3-/-, and Exon1-Cyp4v3-/- mouse models of BCD. As the discussion probes various forms of nontransparent science, the flaws of these knockout mouse models are uncovered. These mouse models do not mimic BCD in humans nor do they address the lack of Cyp4v3 (murine ortholog of human CYP4V2) expression in wild type (WT) mouse retina which is markedly different from CYP4V2 expression in human retina. Further, this article discusses the impact of nontransparent science on drug development which can lead to significant delays ultimately affecting the patients. Lessons from BCD research can be helpful to all those suffering from rare diseases. As a patient, I call for transparent science in rare disease research.

Inquiry in psychology.

When they discuss the Danish academic situation, Szulevicz, Lund and Lund (2021) address three questions about the academic training of psychology researchers: (a) why do Danish master's students in psychology more frequently choose the qualitative method for their research?; (b) what are psychology students working on?; and (c) what are they interested in? These three questions have led us to reflect on researcher training and the political and educational model universities adopt for psychology master's courses, not only in the Danish context, but also in other general contexts. In this commentary, we will discuss one strictly normative issue: what should the scientific ideal be for training researchers in psychology? Or more accurately: how can psychology contribute to discussions about the scientific ideal of researcher training in this knowledge area?

Sesgos en investigación quirúrgica / Biases in surgical research

Resumen Los resultados de diversos hallazgos de investigación han sido objeto de crítica, en especial en los últimos años, debido a presencia de errores sistemáticos (sesgos), los que ponen en duda la validez interna de los resultados obtenidos. Estos sesgos pueden ocurrir en cualquier etapa del curso de una investigación, es decir, desde la planificación del estudio hasta la presentación y publicación de sus resultados. Los sesgos se han clasificado de diferentes formas, intentado agruparlos bajo dimensiones conceptuales, objeto de organizar de mejor forma la información existente, que además es considerable. Los sesgos pueden ocurrir por diversos motivos, pero en general, los más frecuentes son aquellos originados por el observador (él o los que miden), por lo que es observado (sujeto en estudio); y aquello con lo que se observa (instrumento de medición). Por otra parte, varios de los múltiples sesgos existentes, se pueden agrupar en: sesgos de selección, de medición o información, y de confusión. El objetivo de este manuscrito fue comentar la importancia de los sesgos más comunes en la investigación quirúrgica, y su relación con algunos diseños de investigación; así como, conocer las estrategias existentes para minimizar su ocurrencia.

The results of many research findings have come under scrutiny in recent years due to the introduction of systematic errors (biases), which can occur at any stage during an investigation, from planning to presentation of results and their presentation and further publication. Biases have been classified in different ways, trying to group them under conceptual dimensions to better organize the existing information, which is considerable. Biases can occur for various reasons, but in general, the most frequent are those originated by the observer, what is observed; and what is observed with. I.e., the subject that is measured, who measures it and with what it measures it. On the other hand, several of the multiple biases can be grouped into selection, measurement or information, and confounding biases. The aim of this manuscript was to comment on the importance of the most common biases in surgical research, and their relationship with some research designs; as well as know the existing strategies to reduce its occurrence.

Weaknesses of research methodologies on musculoskeletal disorders associated with mobile touch-screen devices.

The objective of the currently study is to point out the weaknesses of some recent researches, which were done about the effects or symptoms of using Touch Screen Mobile Devices on the human musculoskeletal system. In this article, we reviewed the research processes performed in recent 26 randomly selected papers about musculoskeletal disorder to clarify the common weaknesses of these published articles. The electronic database search and reference search were conducted in four different databases: Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. We noticed that none of the reviewed papers had performed the experimental design phase of a scientific research. Additionally they had not validated the assumptions of the statistical methods used in their researches. Therefore, their findings are doubtful. In this article, we proposed practical outlines for a reliable experimental research.

Inappropriate Citation of Retracted Articles in Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine Publications.

BACKGROUND: Retracted articles represent research withdrawn from the existing body of literature after publication. Research articles may be retracted for several reasons ranging from honest errors to intentional misconduct. They should not be used as reliable sources, and it is unclear why they are cited occasionally by other articles. This study hypothesized that several mechanisms may contribute to citing retracted literature and aimed to analyze the characteristics of articles citing retracted literature in anesthesiology and critical care. METHODS: Using the Retraction Watch database, we retrieved retracted articles on anesthesiology and intensive care medicine up to August 16, 2021, and identified the papers citing these retracted articles. A survey designed to investigate the reasons for citing these articles was sent to the corresponding authors of the citing papers. RESULTS: We identified 478 retracted articles, 220 (46%) of which were cited at least once. We contacted 1297 corresponding authors of the papers that cited these articles, 417 (30%) of whom responded to our survey and were included in the final analysis. The median number of authors in the analyzed articles was five, and the median elapsed time from retraction to citation was 3 yr. Most of the corresponding authors (372, 89%) were unaware of the retracted status of the cited article, mainly because of inadequate notification of the retraction status in journals and/or databases and the use of stored copies. CONCLUSIONS: The corresponding authors were generally unaware of the retraction of the cited article, usually because of inadequate identification of the retracted status in journals and/or web databases and the use of stored copies. Awareness of this phenomenon and rigorous control of the cited references before submitting a paper are of fundamental importance in research.