Clinical recommendations: The role of mechanisms in the GRADE framework.

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework has become one of the most influential frameworks for assessing quality of research and developing clinical recommendations. The GRADE framework has been presented as an evolution in the Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) movement. Both GRADE and EBM emphasize effect estimates derived from population-level clinical trials and, as a consequence, devalue the role of mechanisms as the basis for clinical decisions. Although mechanisms do not hold the epistemic privilege of rigorous clinical trials in EBM reasoning, this paper will argue that mechanisms appear to be important in the use and application of GRADE, as described in the literature. The seemingly necessary role of mechanisms in the development of clinical recommendations has, so far, received little attention and is not explicitly featured in the literature describing GRADE. The analysis of the GRADE framework presented in this paper reveals an apparent tension between EBM's willingness to downplay mechanisms and what seems their inevitable use in GRADE. In this paper, we take the position that if mechanistic reasoning is inevitable in the use of GRADE, then the instructional literature on the framework would benefit from more explicit discussion of how to consider and integrate mechanisms.

Advances in CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing for the Treatment of Muscular Dystrophies.

Muscular dystrophies (MDs) comprise a diverse group of inherited disorders characterized by progressive muscle loss and weakness. Given the genetic etiology underlying MDs, researchers have explored the potential of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) genome editing as a therapeutic intervention, resulting in significant advances. Here, we review recent progress on the use of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing as a potential therapy for MDs. Significant strides have been made in this realm, made possible through innovative techniques such as precision genetic editing by modified forms of CRISPR/Cas9. These approaches have shown varying degrees of success in animal models of MD, including Duchenne MD, congenital muscular dystrophy type 1A, and myotonic dystrophy type 1. Even so, there are several challenges facing the development of CRISPR/Cas9-based MD therapies, including the targeting of satellite cells, improved editing efficiency in skeletal and cardiac muscle tissue, delivery vehicle enhancements, and the host immunogenic response. Although more work is needed to advance CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing past the preclinical stages, its therapeutic potential for MD is extremely promising and justifies concentrated efforts to move into clinical trials.

COVID-19 and the generation of novel scientific knowledge: Evidence-based decisions and data sharing.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted every facet of society, including medical research. This paper is the second part of a series of articles that explore the intricate relationship between the different challenges that have hindered biomedical research and the generation of novel scientific knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first part of this series, we demonstrated that, in the context of COVID-19, the scientific community has been faced with numerous challenges with respect to (1) finding and prioritizing relevant research questions and (2) choosing study designs that are appropriate for a time of emergency. METHODS: During the early stages of the pandemic, research conducted on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) sparked several heated debates with respect to the scientific methods used and the quality of knowledge generated. Research on HCQ is used as a case study in both papers. The authors explored biomedical databases, peer-reviewed journals, pre-print servers and media articles to identify relevant literature on HCQ and COVID-19, and examined philosophical perspectives on medical research in the context of this pandemic and previous global health challenges. RESULTS: This second paper demonstrates that a lack of research prioritization and methodological rigour resulted in the generation of fleeting and inconsistent evidence that complicated the development of public health guidelines. The reporting of scientific findings to the scientific community and general public highlighted the difficulty of finding a balance between accuracy and speed. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges in terms of (3) evaluating evidence for the purpose of making evidence-based decisions and (4) sharing scientific findings with the rest of the scientific community. This second paper demonstrates that the four challenges outlined in the first and second papers have often compounded each other and have contributed to slowing down the creation of novel scientific knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 and the generation of novel scientific knowledge: Research questions and study designs.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: One of the sectors challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic is medical research. COVID-19 originates from a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and the scientific community is faced with the daunting task of creating a novel model for this pandemic or, in other words, creating novel science. This paper is the first part of a series of two papers that explore the intricate relationship between the different challenges that have hindered biomedical research and the generation of scientific knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: During the early stages of the pandemic, research conducted on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was chaotic and sparked several heated debates with respect to the scientific methods used and the quality of knowledge generated. Research on HCQ is used as a case study in both papers. The authors explored biomedical databases, peer-reviewed journals, pre-print servers, and media articles to identify relevant literature on HCQ and COVID-19, and examined philosophical perspectives on medical research in the context of this pandemic and previous global health challenges. RESULTS: This paper demonstrates that a lack of prioritization among research questions and therapeutics was responsible for the duplication of clinical trials and the dispersion of precious resources. Study designs, aimed at minimising biases and increasing objectivity, were, instead, the subject of fruitless oppositions. The duplication of research works, combined with poor-quality research, has greatly contributed to slowing down the creation of novel scientific knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges in terms of (1) finding and prioritising relevant research questions and (2) choosing study designs that are appropriate for a time of emergency.