Reproducibility, relevance and reliability as barriers to efficient and credible biomedical technology translation.

Biomedical research accuracy and relevance for improving healthcare are increasingly identified as costly problems. Basic research data quality, reporting and methodology, and reproducibility are common factors implicated in this challenge. Preclinical models of disease and therapy, largely conducted in rodents, have known deficiencies in replicating most human conditions. Their translation to human results is acknowledged to be poor for decades. Clinical data quality and quantity is also recognized as deficient; gold standard randomized clinical trials are expensive. Few solid conclusions from clinical studies are replicable and many remain unpublished. The translational pathway from fundamental biomedical research through to innovative solutions handed to clinical practitioners is therefore highly inefficient and costly in terms of wasted resources, early claims from fundamental discoveries never witnessed in humans, and few new, improved solutions available clinically for myriad diseases. Improving this biomedical research strategy and resourcing for reliability, translational relevance, reproducibility and clinical impact requires careful analysis and consistent enforcement at both funding and peer review levels.

Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships.

Despite the acknowledged injustice and widespread existence of parachute research studies conducted in low- or middle-income countries by researchers from institutions in high-income countries, there is currently no pragmatic guidance for how academic journals should evaluate manuscript submissions and challenge this practice. We assembled a multidisciplinary group of editors and researchers with expertise in international health research to develop this consensus statement. We reviewed relevant existing literature and held three workshops to present research data and holistically discuss the concept of equitable authorship and the role of academic journals in the context of international health research partnerships. We subsequently developed statements to guide prospective authors and journal editors as to how they should address this issue. We recommend that for manuscripts that report research conducted in low- or middle-income countries by collaborations including partners from one or more high-income countries, authors should submit accompanying structured reflexivity statements. We provide specific questions that these statements should address and suggest that journals should transparently publish reflexivity statements with accepted manuscripts. We also provide guidance to journal editors about how they should assess the structured statements when making decisions on whether to accept or reject submitted manuscripts. We urge journals across disciplines to adopt these recommendations to accelerate the changes needed to halt the practice of parachute research.

Introduction to the EQIPD quality system.

While high risk of failure is an inherent part of developing innovative therapies, it can be reduced by adherence to evidence-based rigorous research practices. Supported through the European Union's Innovative Medicines Initiative, the EQIPD consortium has developed a novel preclinical research quality system that can be applied in both public and private sectors and is free for anyone to use. The EQIPD Quality System was designed to be suited to boost innovation by ensuring the generation of robust and reliable preclinical data while being lean, effective and not becoming a burden that could negatively impact the freedom to explore scientific questions. EQIPD defines research quality as the extent to which research data are fit for their intended use. Fitness, in this context, is defined by the stakeholders, who are the scientists directly involved in the research, but also their funders, sponsors, publishers, research tool manufacturers, and collaboration partners such as peers in a multi-site research project. The essence of the EQIPD Quality System is the set of 18 core requirements that can be addressed flexibly, according to user-specific needs and following a user-defined trajectory. The EQIPD Quality System proposes guidance on expectations for quality-related measures, defines criteria for adequate processes (i.e. performance standards) and provides examples of how such measures can be developed and implemented. However, it does not prescribe any pre-determined solutions. EQIPD has also developed tools (for optional use) to support users in implementing the system and assessment services for those research units that successfully implement the quality system and seek formal accreditation. Building upon the feedback from users and continuous improvement, a sustainable EQIPD Quality System will ultimately serve the entire community of scientists conducting non-regulated preclinical research, by helping them generate reliable data that are fit for their intended use.

Analysing the attributes of Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres across Europe to identify key hallmarks.

There is a persistent variation in cancer outcomes among and within European countries suggesting (among other causes) inequalities in access to or delivery of high-quality cancer care. European policy (EU Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan) is currently moving towards a mission-oriented approach addressing these inequalities. In this study, we used the quantitative and qualitative data of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes' Accreditation and Designation Programme, relating to 40 large European cancer centres, to describe their current compliance with quality standards, to identify the hallmarks common to all centres and to show the distinctive features of Comprehensive Cancer Centres. All Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres accredited by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes show good compliance with quality standards related to care, multidisciplinarity and patient centredness. However, Comprehensive Cancer Centres on average showed significantly better scores on indicators related to the volume, quality and integration of translational research, such as high-impact publications, clinical trial activity (especially in phase I and phase IIa trials) and filing more patents as early indicators of innovation. However, irrespective of their size, centres show significant variability regarding effective governance when functioning as entities within larger hospitals.

Preserve a Voucher Specimen! The Critical Need for Integrating Natural History Collections in Infectious Disease Studies.

Despite being nearly 10 months into the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, the definitive animal host for SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), the causal agent of COVID-19, remains unknown. Unfortunately, similar problems exist for other betacoronaviruses, and no vouchered specimens exist to corroborate host species identification for most of these pathogens. This most basic information is critical to the full understanding and mitigation of emerging zoonotic diseases. To overcome this hurdle, we recommend that host-pathogen researchers adopt vouchering practices and collaborate with natural history collections to permanently archive microbiological samples and host specimens. Vouchered specimens and associated samples provide both repeatability and extension to host-pathogen studies, and using them mobilizes a large workforce (i.e., biodiversity scientists) to assist in pandemic preparedness. We review several well-known examples that successfully integrate host-pathogen research with natural history collections (e.g., yellow fever, hantaviruses, helminths). However, vouchering remains an underutilized practice in such studies. Using an online survey, we assessed vouchering practices used by microbiologists (e.g., bacteriologists, parasitologists, virologists) in host-pathogen research. A much greater number of respondents permanently archive microbiological samples than archive host specimens, and less than half of respondents voucher host specimens from which microbiological samples were lethally collected. To foster collaborations between microbiologists and natural history collections, we provide recommendations for integrating vouchering techniques and archiving of microbiological samples into host-pathogen studies. This integrative approach exemplifies the premise underlying One Health initiatives, providing critical infrastructure for addressing related issues ranging from public health to global climate change and the biodiversity crisis.

Experience, Perceptions, and Recommendations Concerning COVID-19-Related Clinical Research Adjustments.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FDA and NIH altered clinical trial requirements to protect participants and manage study conduct. Given their detailed knowledge of research protocols and regular contact with patients, clinicians, and sponsors, clinical research professionals offer important perspectives on these changes. METHODS: We developed and distributed an anonymous survey assessing COVID-19-related clinical trial adjustment experiences, perceptions, and recommendations to Clinical Research Office personnel at the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center. Responses were compared using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: A total of 94 of 109 contacted research personnel (87%) responded. Among these individuals, 58% had >5 years' professional experience in clinical research, and 56% had personal experience with a COVID-19-related change. Respondents perceived that these changes had a positive impact on patient safety; treatment efficacy; patient and staff experience; and communication with patients, investigators, and sponsors. More than 90% felt that positive changes should be continued after COVID-19. For remote consent, telehealth, therapy shipment, off-site diagnostics, and remote monitoring, individuals with personal experience with the specific change and individuals with >5 years' professional experience were numerically more likely to recommend continuing the adjustment, and these differences were significant for telehealth (P=.04) and therapy shipment (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical research professionals perceive that COVID-19-related clinical trial adjustments positively impact multiple aspects of study conduct. Those with greatest experience-both specific to COVID-19-related changes and more generally-are more likely to recommend that these adjustments continue in the future.

Sample size, study length, and inadequate controls were the most common self-acknowledged limitations in manual therapy trials: A methodological review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to quantify and analyze the presence and type of self-acknowledged limitations (SALs) in a sample of manual therapy (MT) randomized controlled trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We randomly selected 120 MT trials. We extracted data related to SALs from the original reports and classified them into 12 categories. After data extraction, specific limitations within each category were identified. A descriptive analysis was performed using frequencies and percentages for qualitative variables. RESULTS: The number of SALs per trial article ranged from 0 to 8, and more than two-thirds of trials acknowledged at least two different limitations. Despite its small proportion, 9% of trials did not report SALs. The most common limitation declared, in almost half of our sample, related to sample size (47.5%) followed by limitations related to study length and follow-up (33.3%) and inadequate controls (32.5%). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that at least two different limitations are consistently acknowledged in MT trial reports, the most common being those related to sample size, study length, follow-up, and inadequate controls. Analysis of the reasons behind the SALs gives some insights about the main difficulties in conducting research in this field and may help develop strategies to improve future research.

Auditory Mapping With MEG: An Update on the Current State of Clinical Research and Practice With Considerations for Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Auditory evoked fields (AEFs) are well suited for studies of auditory processing in patients. Their sources have been localized to Heschl's gyri and to the supratemporal auditory cortices. Auditory evoked fields are known to be modulated by peripheral and central lesions of auditory pathways and to reflect group-level pathophysiology of neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders. They are useful in lateralization of language processes for planning neurosurgery and for localization of language-related cortex. The recently developed artifact rejection and movement compensation methods will enhance and extend the use of AEFs in studies of clinical patients and pediatric groups. New pediatric magnetoencephalography systems will facilitate clinical AEF studies of developmental disorders. In addition to their established use in planning neurosurgery, AEF findings in several new clinical patient groups suffering, e.g., from developmental, neurodegenerative, or psychiatric disorders have been reported. Several recent investigations report the correlations with clinical symptoms and sensitivity and specificity profiles of AEFs in studies of these disorders; this development is mandatory in gaining wider clinical approval for the use of AEFs in clinical practice dealing with individual patients. Most promising future research lines of clinical applicability of AEFs focus on developmental and psychiatric disorders.

Standards for preclinical research and publications in developmental anaesthetic neurotoxicity: expert opinion statement from the SmartTots preclinical working group.

In March 2019, SmartTots, a public-private partnership between the US Food and Drug Administration and the International Anesthesia Research Society, hosted a meeting attended by research experts, anaesthesia journal editors, and government agency representatives to discuss the continued need for rigorous preclinical research and the importance of establishing reporting standards for the field of anaesthetic perinatal neurotoxicity. This group affirmed the importance of preclinical research in the field, and welcomed novel and mechanistic approaches to answer some of the field's largest questions. The attendees concluded that summarising the benefits and disadvantages of specific model systems, and providing guidance for reporting results, would be helpful for designing new experiments and interpreting results across laboratories. This expert opinion report is a summary of these discussions, and includes a focused review of current animal models and reporting standards for the field of perinatal anaesthetic neurotoxicity. This will serve as a practical guide and road map for novel and rigorous experimental work.

Best practice in research - Overcoming common challenges in phytopharmacological research.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacology, toxicology and pharmacokinetics of bioactive preparations derived from natural sources has become a flourishing field of research. However, researching complex extracts and natural products faces numerous challenges. More broadly in recent years the critique of pharmacological research, and specifically its design, the methods used and reporting has intensified. AIMS: This consensus document provides a perspective on what constitutes best practice in pharmacological research on bioactive preparations derived from natural sources, providing a perspective of what the leading specialist journals in the field consider as the core characteristics of good research. APPROACH ('METHODS'): The editors-in-chief of seven journals developed this best practice statement in an iterative process. A first draft of the guidelines (prepared by MH) was then discussed and amended by the other editors. OUTCOMES: Core to this contribution is a table which provides detailed advice including simple points like a use of appropriate controls and the full taxonomic validity of the material under investigation (see also below), to the relevance of the model for the question being researched (e.g., can specific in silico or in vitro models really address the species anti-inflammatory activity?). Therefore, obviously, researchers must pay detailed attention to reporting and discussing such studies. This information must be discussed critically (as much as it is possible based on the published papers) in terms of their scientific quality and validity. While these points are obvious, as editors, we are aware that they are often not properly implemented. CONCLUSION: We call for an approach which incorporates a careful design, meticulous execution and a detailed reporting of studies focusing on the pharmacology/bioactivity of bioactive preparations. Clearly testable research questions must be developed and investigated experimentally. As the founder of pharmacology Claude Bernard put it already in 1865: '…. either the experimenter's hypothesis will be disproved or it will be proved by experiment. When experiment disproves its preconceived ideas, the experimenter must discard or modify it.'