![Funder Definition of systematic reviews
NIHR “New primary research will only be funded if it is based on a
review of existing evidence that is credible to your peers and is
completed according to a predetermined methodology….
maximises completeness in a way proportionate to the risk of an
inappropriate funding decision, ….critically appraises for quality
and relevance, synthesises […..without introduce new bias]
PCORI PCORI defines systematic reviews ..The PCORI Methodology Committee
endorses the standards issued by the National Academy of Medicine
(NAM), formerly the Institute of Medicine. This committee recognizes the
importance of conducting systematic reviews consistent with updates to
methodological best practices. But it also acknowledges that flexibility in
the application of some standards may not compromise the validity of the
review.
CIHR The policy on clinical trials say - “ The researcher has a
responsibility to present the proposed research in the context of a
systematic review of the literature on that topic. Clinical trials
should not be conducted unnecessarily on questions that have
already been definitively answered.” We did not find any
additional information.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/bergenpublicmeetingmona-190213222842/85/Mona-Nasser-Research-waste-when-designing-new-research-role-of-funders-12-320.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to Mona Nasser: Research waste when designing new research (role of funders) (20)
Mona Nasser: Research waste when designing new research (role of funders)
- 1. Research waste when designing new research Dr Mona Nasser DDS, MSc, PhD, FHEA Associate Professor in Evidence based Dentistry Peninsula Dental School Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry University of Plymouth What do funders do to increase value and reduce waste in research?
- 2. 2014 2017 EVIR (Ensuring Value In Research) collaboration 2117
- 3. BLACK MIRROR STAR TREK
- 4. BLACK MIRROR • Everyone can submit research questions to panel • There are established centres with AI and humans analysing these questions • There are transparent processes to prioritise • All research are conducted meeting certain quality standards and full reported and available • All research is embedded in a systematic synthesis of previous research and their results automatically added to it • More and More Billionaires and Millionaires start supporting research and controlling what scientific topics gets forward • They make public agencies become irrelevant and less influential • The research agenda, quality of research and what is disseminate is decided by those who have the most money STAR TREK
- 5. • Effect to bias ratio • Choice of question Nasser M, Pandis N, Fleming PS, Fedorowicz Z, Ellis E, Ali K. Interventions for the management of mandibular fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 8;(7):CD006087. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, Schulz KF, Tibshirani R. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):166-75.
- 6. • Observational studies >> RCTs (3.3-4.5 times) • Studies with surrogate endpoints >> clinical endpoints (1.6-3 times) Bolland MJ, Avenell A, Grey A. Assessment of research waste part 1: an exemplar from examining study design, surrogate and clinical endpoints in studies of calcium intake and vitamin D supplementation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Oct 10;18(1):103.
- 7. Cochrane review with meta-analysis (Apr 2012-Mar 2013) • 556/1286 (43%) trials (205 meta- analyses) ->> at least one domain of high risk of bias. • Adjustment possible in 142 of them and easy adjustment with no or minor cost in 71 of them (50%) Yordanov Y, Dechartres A, Atal I, Tran VT, Boutron I, Crequit P, Ravaud P. Avoidable waste of research related to outcome planning and reporting in clinical trials. BMC Med. 2018 Jun 11;16(1):87 .
- 10. Funding agency Country National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK/England Medical Research Council (MRC) UK French Ministry of Health (FMoH) France l’Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) France Deutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftDeutsche (DFG) Germany The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) Netherlands Danske Regioner (DR ) Denmark Regional Health Authorities (RHA ) Norway National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australia Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Canada National Institutes of Health (NIH) USA Patient Centred Outcomes Research Group (PCORI) USA
- 11. Nasser M, Clarke M, Chalmers I, Brurberg KG, Nykvist H, Lund H, Glasziou P. What are funders doing to minimise waste in research? Lancet. 2017 Mar 11;389(10073):1006-1007. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30657-8. Nasser M, Clarke M, Chalmers I, Brurberg KG, Nykvist H, Lund H, Glasziou P. How can research funders add value to research as part of a special session on responsible research conduct for funding agencies. Work Research integrity conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 28-31 May 2017
- 12. Funder Definition of systematic reviews NIHR “New primary research will only be funded if it is based on a review of existing evidence that is credible to your peers and is completed according to a predetermined methodology…. maximises completeness in a way proportionate to the risk of an inappropriate funding decision, ….critically appraises for quality and relevance, synthesises […..without introduce new bias] PCORI PCORI defines systematic reviews ..The PCORI Methodology Committee endorses the standards issued by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), formerly the Institute of Medicine. This committee recognizes the importance of conducting systematic reviews consistent with updates to methodological best practices. But it also acknowledges that flexibility in the application of some standards may not compromise the validity of the review. CIHR The policy on clinical trials say - “ The researcher has a responsibility to present the proposed research in the context of a systematic review of the literature on that topic. Clinical trials should not be conducted unnecessarily on questions that have already been definitively answered.” We did not find any additional information.
- 13. Funded project Which part of the proposal used a systematic review How is was used A multicentre prospective randomised open-label blinded end-point controlled trial of cardiac troponin I-guided combination angiotensin receptor blockade and beta blocker therapy to prevent cardiac toxicity in anthracycline treated breast cancer patients They cite NICE guideline and a meta- analysis To choose the intervention and comparison Randomised double-blind controlled efficacy and mechanism study of sub-sensory sacral neuromodulation in adults with faecal incontinence They cite three systematic reviews and a third self- conducted one Demonstrating previous studies were observational or RCTS with quality issues IASO: A phase II randomised placebo controlled double blind trial of Interleukin 1 blockade in Acute Severe Colitis They cite one systematic review They use the review to design their study (choice of outcome measures)
- 15. Innovative idea Innovator Contextual challenges And Impact on Society Gummerum, M., & Denham, S. L. (2014). Cognitive Innovation: From Cell to Society, 10. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v10i4.879 Nasser M 2017 'How Do Selected National Funding Agencies Communicate the Concept of Cognitive Innovation on Their Public Website?' AVANT. Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies Publisher Site , DOI
- 17. BLACK MIRROR • Everyone can submit research questions to panel • There are established centres with AI and humans analysing these questions • There are transparent processes to prioritise • All research are conducted meeting certain quality standards and full reported and available • All research is embedded in a systematic synthesis of previous research and their results automatically added to it • More and More Billionaires and Millionaires start supporting research and controlling what scientific topics gets forward • They make public agencies become irrelevant and less influential • The research agenda, quality of research and what is disseminate is decided by those who have the most money STAR TREK