The Heart Failure Patient Foundation Position Statement on Research and Patient Involvement.

BACKGROUND: Heart Failure (HF) is a growing global public health problem affecting approximately 64 million people worldwide. OBJECTIVES: The Heart Failure Patient Foundation developed a position statement to advocate for adult patients with HF to be an active participant in research and for HF leaders to integrate patients throughout the research process. METHODS: A review of the literature and best practices was conducted. Based on the evidence, the HF Patient Foundation made recommendations regarding the inclusion of adult patients with HF throughout the research process. RESULTS: Healthcare clinicians, researchers and funding agencies have a role to ensure rigorous quality research is performed and implemented into practice. Inclusion of adult patients with HF throughout the research process can improve the lives of patients and families while advancing HF science. CONCLUSIONS: The HF Patient Foundation strongly advocates that patients with HF be involved in research from inception of the project through dissemination of findings to improve patient outcomes.

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.

Essential data variables for a minimum dataset for head and neck cancer trials and clinical research: HNCIG consensus recommendations and database.

The Head and Neck Cancer International Group (HNCIG) has undertaken an international modified Delphi process to reach consensus on the essential data variables to be included in a minimum database for HNC research. Endorsed by 19 research organisations representing 34 countries, these recommendations provide the framework to facilitate and harmonise data collection and sharing for HNC research. These variables have also been incorporated into a ready to use downloadable HNCIG minimum database, available from the HNCIG website.

NCI Cancer Research Data Commons: Core Standards and Services.

The NCI Cancer Research Data Commons (CRDC) is a collection of data commons, analysis platforms, and tools that make existing cancer data more findable and accessible by the cancer research community. In practice, the two biggest hurdles to finding and using data for discovery are the wide variety of models and ontologies used to describe data, and the dispersed storage of that data. Here, we outline core CRDC services to aggregate descriptive information from multiple studies for findability via a single interface and to provide a single access method that spans multiple data commons. See related articles by Wang et al., p. 1388, Pot et al., p. 1396, and Kim et al., p. 1404.

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.

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.

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.

Operationalizing Equity, Inclusion, and Access in Research Practice at a Large Academic Institution.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare advances are hindered by underrepresentation in prospective research; sociodemographic, data, and measurement infidelity in retrospective research; and a paucity of guidelines surrounding equitable research practices. OBJECTIVE: The Joint Research Practices Working Group was created in 2021 to develop and disseminate guidelines for the conduct of inclusive and equitable research. METHODS: Volunteer faculty and staff from two research centers at the University of Pennsylvania initiated a multi-pronged approach to guideline development, including literature searches, center-level feedback, and mutual learning with local experts. RESULTS: We developed guidelines for (1) participant payment and incentives; (2) language interpretation and translation; (3) plain language in research communications; (4) readability of study materials; and (5) inclusive language for scientific communications. Key recommendations include (1) offer cash payments and multiple payment options to participants when required actions are completed; (2) identify top languages of your target population, map points of contact, and determine available interpretation and translation resources; (3) assess reading levels of materials and simplify language, targeting 6th- to 8th-grade reading levels; (4) improve readability through text formatting and style, symbols, and visuals; and (5) use specific, humanizing terms as adjectives rather than nouns. CONCLUSIONS: Diversity, inclusion, and access are critical values for research conduct that promotes justice and equity. These values can be operationalized through organizational commitment that combines bottom-up and top-down approaches and through partnerships across organizations that promote mutual learning and synergy. While our guidelines represent best practices at one time, we recognize that practices evolve and need to be evaluated continuously for accuracy and relevance. Our intention is to bring awareness to these critical topics and form a foundation for important conversations surrounding equitable and inclusive research practices.

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.

Guías para la elaboración de manuscritos y unas pinceladas de lectura crítica / Reporting guidelines and a touch of critical appraisal

El proceso de investigación biomédica debe seguir unos criterios de calidad en su diseño y elaboración que garanticen que los resultados son creíbles y fiables. Una vez finalizado, llega el momento de escribir un artículo para su publicación. Este debe presentar con suficiente detalle, y de forma clara y transparente, toda la información del trabajo de investigación realizado. De esta forma, los lectores, tras una lectura crítica de lo publicado, podrán juzgar la validez y la relevancia del estudio, y si lo consideran, utilizar los hallazgos. Con el objetivo de mejorar la descripción del proceso de investigación para su publicación, se han desarrollado una serie de guías que, de forma sencilla y estructurada, orientan a los autores a la hora de elaborar un manuscrito. Se presentan en forma de lista, diagrama de flujo, o texto estructurado, y son una ayuda inestimable a la hora de escribir un artículo. Este artículo presenta las guías de elaboración de manuscritos de los diseños más habituales, con sus listas de verificación.(AU)

The biomedical research process must follow certain quality criteria in its design and development to ensure that the results are credible and reliable. Once completed, the time comes to write an article for publication. The article must present in sufficient detail, and in a clear and transparent manner, all the information on the research work that has been carried out. In this way, readers, after a critical reading of the published content, will be able to judge the validity and relevance of the study and, if they so wish, make use of the findings. In order to improve the description of the research process for publication, a series of guidelines have been developed which, in a simple and structured way, guide authors in the preparation of a manuscript. They are presented in the form of a list, flowchart, or structured text, and are an invaluable aid when writing an article. This article presents the reporting guidelines for the most common designs along with the corresponding checklists.(AU)

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?