The mechanical properties of the spinal cord: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND CONTENT: Spinal cord compression is a source of pathology routinely seen in clinical practice. However, there remain unanswered questions surrounding both the understanding of pathogenesis and the best method of treatment. This arises from limited real-life testing of the mechanical properties of the spinal cord, either through cadaveric human specimens or animal testing, both of which suffer from methodological, as well as ethical, issues. PURPOSE: To conduct a review of the literature on the mechanical properties of the spinal cord. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A systematic review of the literature on the mechanical properties of the spinal cord is undertaken. PATIENT SAMPLE: All literature reporting the testing of the mechanical properties of the spinal cord. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reported physiological mechanical properties of the spinal cord. METHODS: The methodological quality of the studies has been assessed within the ARRIVE guidelines using the CAMARADES framework and SYRCLE's risk of bias tool. This paper details the methodologies and results of the reported testing. RESULTS: We show that (1) the research quality of previous work does not follow published guidelines on animal treatment or risk of bias, (2) no standard protocol has been employed for sample preparation or mechanical testing, (3) this leads to a wide distribution of results for the tested mechanical properties, not applicable to the living human or animal, and (4) animal testing is not a good proxy for human application. CONCLUSIONS: The findings summarize the sum of current knowledge inherent to the mechanical properties of the spinal cord and may contribute to the development of a physical model which is applicable to the living human for analysis and testing in a controlled and repeatable fashion. Such a model would be the basis for further clinical research to improve outcomes from spinal cord compression.

The mechanical properties of the spinal cord: a protocol for a systematic review of previous testing procedures and results.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord compression is a pathology seen in routine clinical practice. However, there remain a number of unanswered questions around both the understanding of the pathogenesis and the best method of treatment of the condition. This is partly due to the issues of the real-life testing of the physical properties of the spinal cord, either through the use of cadaveric human specimens or through animal testing, both of which have methodological, as well as ethical, issues. DESIGN AND METHODS: This paper details a protocol for a systematic review of the literature on the mechanical properties of the spinal cord. We will conduct a literature search of a number of electronic databases, along with the grey literature, as a single-stage search. All literature will be screened for appropriate studies which will then be reviewed fully to extract relevant information on the methodology and mechanics of the reported testing along with the results. Two reviewers will separately screen and extract the data, with a comparison of results to ensure concordance. Conflicts will be resolved through discussion and independent arbitration as required. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed within the ARRIVE guidelines using the CAMARADES framework and SYRCLE risk of bias tool. A narrative synthesis will be created with the appropriate tables to describe the demographics and findings of the included studies. DISCUSSION: The systematic review described here will form the basis of an understanding of the current literature around the physical properties of the spinal cord. This will allow future work to develop a physical model of the spinal cord, which is translatable to patients for analysis and testing in a controlled and repeatable fashion. Such a model would be the basis for further clinical research to improve outcomes from this condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero registration number: CRD42022361933.

Are European clinical trial funders policies on clinical trial registration and reporting improving? A cross-sectional study.

Objectives: Assess the extent to which the clinical trial registration and reporting policies of 25 of the world's largest public and philanthropic medical research funders meet best practice benchmarks as stipulated by the 2017 WHO Joint Statement, and document changes in the policies and monitoring systems of 19 European funders over the past year. Design Setting Participants: Cross-sectional study, based on assessments of each funder's publicly available documentation plus validation of results by funders. Our cohort includes 25 of the largest medical research funders in Europe, Oceania, South Asia, and Canada. Interventions: Scoring all 25 funders using an 11-item assessment tool based on WHO best practice benchmarks, grouped into three primary categories: trial registries, academic publication, and monitoring, plus validation of results by funders. Main outcome measures: How many of the 11 WHO best practice items each of the 25 funders has put into place, and changes in the performance of 19 previously assessed funders over the preceding year. Results: The 25 funders we assessed had put into place an average of 5/11 (49%) WHO best practices. Only 6/25 funders (24%) took the PI's past reporting record into account during grant application reviews. Funders' performance varied widely from 0/11 to 11/11 WHO best practices adopted. Of the 19 funders for which 2021(2) baseline data was available, 10/19 (53%) had strengthened their policies over the preceding year. Conclusions: Most medical research funders need to do more to curb research waste and publication bias by strengthening their clinical trial policies.

Predictors of self-reported research engagement and academic-career interest amongst medical students in the United Kingdom: a national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesised that the gender/ethnic disparities and reductions in the UK academic-clinician workforce stem from research experience in medical school. This study investigated the factors influencing research engagement and academic-career interests among UK medical students. METHODS: Using a 42-item online questionnaire, a national multicentre cross-sectional survey of UK medical students was conducted over 9 weeks in the 2020/21 academic year. Multiple binary logistic and zero-inflated negative binomial regressions were used to evaluate associations between the predictor variables and research engagement (yes/no), number of research projects conducted, and academic-career interest (yes/no). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: In total, 1573 students participated from 36 medical schools. No ethnic/gender differences in research engagement were observed. However, compared to men, women had a 31% decrease in the odds of being interested in an academic-clinician career [odds ratio (OR): 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52, 0.92]. Positive predictors of interest in academia were being a PubMed-indexed author (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.38, 3.47) and having at least one national/international presentation (OR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.88). Career progression was the primary motivating factor (67.1%) for pursuing research, whereas limited awareness of opportunities (68.0%) and time constraints (67.5%) were the most common barriers. CONCLUSION: There were no ethnic differences in research engagement or academic-career intent. Although there were no gender differences in research engagement, female students were less likely to be interested in an academic career. This could be tackled by providing targeted opportunities to increase research productivity and self-efficacy in medical schools. Key messages: What is already known on this topic: There has been a decline in the number of academic clinicians, with a disproportionate gender and ethnic representation in the academic workforce. Engaging medical students in research activities during their medical training could mitigate the declining number of academic clinicians. Differential attainment occurs in medical school and persists after graduation. What this study adds: Although there were no gender/ethnic differences in research engagement amongst UK medical students, our study suggests that female students were less likely to be interested in pursuing an academic career. Time constraints, a lack of awareness of opportunities, and difficulty in finding research supervisors/mentors were the most common barriers to research engagement, whereas PubMed-indexed authorship was the strongest positive predictor of interest in an academic career. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy: Medical schools should facilitate the selection of good-quality research mentors that would provide adequate support to ensure that their students' works are published in peer-reviewed journals. Medical schools should employ local research officers to increase students' awareness of research opportunities.

Predictors of self-reported research productivity amongst medical students in the United Kingdom: a national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The number of academic clinicians in the UK is declining and there are demographic inequalities in the clinical-academic workforce. Increased research productivity by medical students is believed to reduce future attrition in the clinical-academic workforce. Thus, this study investigated the association between student demographics and research productivity amongst UK medical students. METHODS: This is a national multicentre cross-sectional study of UK medical students in the 2020/21 academic year. We appointed one student representative per medical school, and they disseminated a 42-item online questionnaire over nine weeks, through departmental emails and social media advertisements. The outcome measures were: (i) publications (yes/no) (ii) number of publications (iii) number of first-authored publications (iv) abstract presentation (yes/no). We utilised multiple logistic and zero-inflated Poisson regression analyses to test for associations between the outcome measures and predictor variables at a 5% significance level. RESULTS: There are 41 medical schools in the UK. We received 1573 responses from 36 UK medical schools. We failed to recruit student representatives from three newly formed medical schools, whilst two medical schools prohibited us from sending the survey to their students. Women had lower odds of having a publication (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.33-0.85) and on average had fewer first-author publications than men (IRR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.37-0.89). Compared to white students, mixed-ethnicity students had greater odds of having a publication (OR: 3.06, 95% CI: 1.67-5.59), an abstract presentation (OR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.37-3.26), and on average had a greater number of publications (IRR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.02-3.43). On average, students who attended independent UK secondary schools had a higher rate of first-author publications compared to those that attended state secondary schools (IRR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.23-3.15). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that there are gender, ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities in research productivity among UK medical students. To tackle this, and potentially improve diversity in clinical academia, we recommend that medical schools should facilitate targeted high quality research mentorship, funding and training, especially for under-represented-in-medicine students.

Predictors of self-reported research self-efficacy and perception of research amongst medical students in the United Kingdom: a national cross-sectional survey.

PURPOSE: There has been a decline in the number of academic clinicians in the UK, and there are ethnic/gender disparities in the academic workforce. Higher research self-efficacy (RSE) and a positive perception of research (PoR) amongst students are associated with a higher motivation to engage in academic medicine. Hence, this study aimed to determine the factors that influence RSE and PoR amongst UK medical students. METHODS: This is a multicentre cross-sectional survey of medical students in 36 UK medical schools in the 2020/21 academic year. Multiple linear regression was used to investigate the association between students' demographics and RSE/PoR. P-values less than a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of .05/28 = .0018 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: In total, 1573 individuals participated from 36 medical schools. There were no ethnic differences in PoR or RSE scores. Although there were no gender differences in PoR, female students had lower RSE scores than male students (adjusted ß = -1.75; 95% CI: -2.62, -0.89). Research experience before medical school (adjusted ß = 3.02; 95% CI: 2.11, 3.93), being in the clinical training phase (adjusted ß = 1.99; 95% CI: 1.09, 2.90), and completing a degree before medical school (adjusted ß = 3.66; 95% CI: 2.23, 5.09) were associated with higher RSE. CONCLUSION: There were no associations between the predictor variables and PoR. Female students had lower self-reported RSE scores. Future studies should investigate the role of targeted research mentorship in improving RSE amongst female medical students.