Catalogue Search | MBRL
Search Results Heading
Explore the vast range of titles available.
MBRLSearchResults
-
DisciplineDiscipline
-
Is Peer ReviewedIs Peer Reviewed
-
Series TitleSeries Title
-
Reading LevelReading Level
-
YearFrom:-To:
-
More FiltersMore FiltersContent TypeItem TypeIs Full-Text AvailableSubjectCountry Of PublicationPublisherSourceTarget AudienceDonorLanguagePlace of PublicationContributorsLocation
Done
Filters
Reset
3,041,439
result(s) for
"Medical Research"
Sort by:
Strategic vision for improving human health at The Forefront of Genomics
by
Solomon, Benjamin D.
,
Gunter, Chris
,
Wise, Anastasia L.
in
631/208/212
,
631/208/212/2301
,
692/308/2056
2020
Starting with the launch of the Human Genome Project three decades ago, and continuing after its completion in 2003, genomics has progressively come to have a central and catalytic role in basic and translational research. In addition, studies increasingly demonstrate how genomic information can be effectively used in clinical care. In the future, the anticipated advances in technology development, biological insights, and clinical applications (among others) will lead to more widespread integration of genomics into almost all areas of biomedical research, the adoption of genomics into mainstream medical and public-health practices, and an increasing relevance of genomics for everyday life. On behalf of the research community, the National Human Genome Research Institute recently completed a multi-year process of strategic engagement to identify future research priorities and opportunities in human genomics, with an emphasis on health applications. Here we describe the highest-priority elements envisioned for the cutting-edge of human genomics going forward—that is, at ‘The Forefront of Genomics’.
In this Perspective, authors from the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) present a vision for human genomics research for the coming decade.
Journal Article
Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management
by
Hemminki, Elina
,
Beller, Elaine
,
Wisely, Janet
in
Bioethics
,
Biomedical research
,
Biomedical Research - legislation & jurisprudence
2014
After identification of an important research question and selection of an appropriate study design, waste can arise from the regulation, governance, and management of biomedical research. Obtaining regulatory and governance approval has become increasingly burdensome and disproportionate to the conceivable risks to research participants. Regulation and governance involve interventions that are assumed to be justified in the interests of patients and the public, but they can actually compromise these interests. Inefficient management of the procedural conduct of research is wasteful, especially if it results in poor recruitment and retention of participants in well designed studies addressing important questions. These sources of waste can be minimised if the following four recommendations are addressed. First, regulators should use their influence to reduce other causes of waste and inefficiency in research. Second, regulators and policy makers should work with researchers, patients, and health professionals to streamline and harmonise the laws, regulations, guidelines, and processes that govern whether and how research can be done, and ensure that they are proportionate to the plausible risks associated with the research. Third, researchers and research managers should increase the efficiency of recruitment, retention, data monitoring, and data sharing in research through use of research designs known to reduce inefficiencies, and further research should be done to learn how efficiency can be increased. Finally, everyone, particularly those responsible for health-care systems, should promote integration of research into everyday clinical practice. Regulators and researchers should monitor adherence to each of these recommendations and publish metrics.
Journal Article
A reinvestigation of recruitment to randomised, controlled, multicenter trials: a review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies
by
Julious, Steven A
,
Nicholl, Jon
,
Sully, Ben G O
in
Analysis
,
Biomedical Research - economics
,
Biomedical Research - methods
2013
Background
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard assessment for health technologies. A key aspect of the design of any clinical trial is the target sample size. However, many publicly-funded trials fail to reach their target sample size. This study seeks to assess the current state of recruitment success and grant extensions in trials funded by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program and the UK Medical Research Council (MRC).
Methods
Data were gathered from two sources: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA Journal Archive and the MRC subset of the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) register. A total of 440 trials recruiting between 2002 and 2008 were assessed for eligibility, of which 73 met the inclusion criteria. Where data were unavailable from the reports, members of the trial team were contacted to ensure completeness.
Results
Over half (55%) of trials recruited their originally specified target sample size, with over three-quarters (78%) recruiting 80% of their target. There was no evidence of this improving over the time of the assessment. Nearly half (45%) of trials received an extension of some kind. Those that did were no more likely to successfully recruit. Trials with 80% power were less likely to successfully recruit compared to studies with 90% power.
Conclusions
While recruitment appears to have improved since 1994 to 2002, publicly-funded trials in the UK still struggle to recruit to their target sample size, and both time and financial extensions are often requested. Strategies to cope with such problems should be more widely applied. It is recommended that where possible studies are planned with 90% power.
Journal Article
Interpreting biomedical science : experiment, evidence, and belief
Interpreting Biomedical Science: Experiment, Evidence, and Belief discusses what can go wrong in biological science, providing an unbiased view and cohesive understanding of scientific methods, statistics, data interpretation, and scientific ethics that are illustrated with practical examples and real-life applications. Casting a wide net, the reader is exposed to scientific problems and solutions through informed perspectives from history, philosophy, sociology, and the social psychology of science. The book shows the differences and similarities between disciplines and different eras and illustrates the concept that while sound methodology is necessary for the progress of science, we cannot succeed without a right culture of doing things.
Evolution of Translational Omics
by
Nass, Sharly J
,
Micheel, Christine M
,
Omenn, Gilbert S
in
Analysis
,
Bioinformatics
,
Biomolecules
2012
Technologies collectively called omics enable simultaneous measurement of an enormous number of biomolecules; for example, genomics investigates thousands of DNA sequences, and proteomics examines large numbers of proteins. Scientists are using these technologies to develop innovative tests to detect disease and to predict a patient's likelihood of responding to specific drugs. Following a recent case involving premature use of omics-based tests in cancer clinical trials at Duke University, the NCI requested that the IOM establish a committee to recommend ways to strengthen omics-based test development and evaluation. This report identifies best practices to enhance development, evaluation, and translation of omics-based tests while simultaneously reinforcing steps to ensure that these tests are appropriately assessed for scientific validity before they are used to guide patient treatment in clinical trials.
Handbook of arts-based research
\"The handbook is heavy on methods chapters in different genres. There are chapters on actual methods that include methodological instruction and examples. There is also ample attention given to practical issues including evaluation, writing, ethics and publishing. With respect to writing style, contributors have made their chapters reader-friendly by limiting their use of jargon, providing methodological instruction when appropriate, and offering robust research examples from their own work and/or others\"-- Provided by publisher.
Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful
by
Ioannidis, John P. A.
in
Biomedical Research - classification
,
Biomedical Research - organization & administration
,
Biomedical Research - standards
2016
John Ioannidis argues that problem base, context placement, information gain, pragmatism, patient centeredness, value for money, feasibility, and transparency define useful clinical research. He suggests most clinical research is not useful and reform is overdue.
Journal Article