Instrumento para evaluar proyectos de investigación que concursan a beca en la Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría: Validación mediante el método Delphi / Instrument to assess research projects that apply for a fellowship by the Argentine Society of Pediatrics: Validation using the Delphi method

El objetivo del presente trabajo fue validar la forma y el contenido, mediante un método de consulta a expertos, como es el método Delphi, del instrumento para evaluar proyectos de investigación que concursan a beca en la Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría. Material y métodos. Un grupo coordinador seleccionó el panel de expertos en investigación pertenecientes a la Sociedad, diseñó y analizó cada una de las rondas de consulta. Los cuestionarios semiestructurados fueron enviados por correo electrónico en forma personalizada. Se estableció como criterio de consenso un acuerdo entre los expertos > 80 %. En cada ronda, se reformularon los aspectos no consensuados y se agregaron nuevos aspectos sugeridos por los expertos. Se consideró como medida de estabilidad para concluir la consulta cuando más del 70 % de los expertos no modificaron su opinión en rondas sucesivas. Resultados. Participaron del proceso 13 expertos en investigación. Luego de 3 rondas, finalizó el método de consulta. El instrumento consensuado contiene 47 ítems. El 10 % de la puntuación total corresponde a presentación general; el 40 %, a calidad metodológica; el 20 %, a relevancia-aplicabilidad; el 20 %, a factibilidad; y el 10 %, a antecedentes del becario y del director. Conclusiones. Se validó la forma y el contenido, mediante consenso de expertos, del instrumento de evaluación de proyectos de investigación que concursan a becas de investigación en la Sociedad y se lograron criterios objetivos de evaluación.

The objective of this study was to validate the format and contents of an instrument to assess research projects that apply for a fellowship by the Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría using an expert consultation technique, such as the Delphi method. Material and methods. A coordinating group selected a panel of research experts who were members of the Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría,designed, and analyzed each of the rounds of consultations. Semistructured questionnaires were sent by personalized e-mail. Agreement among experts > 80 % was established as the criterion for consensus. At each round of consultation, non-consensual aspects were reformulated and new aspects suggested by experts were included. A measure of stability to conclude the consultation was determined when more than 70 % of experts sustained their opinion in successive rounds. Results. Thirteen research experts participated in the process. After 3 rounds, the consultation process was concluded. The consensual instrument contains 47 items. In relation to the total score, 10 % corresponds to the general presentation; 40 %, to methodological quality; 20 %, to relevance and applicability; 20 %, to feasibility; and 10 %, to the fellow's and director's background. Conclusions. The format and contents of the instrument to assess research projects that apply for a fellowship by the Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría were validated based on expert consensus and objective assessment criteria were established.

Protocol and Rationale-The Efficacy of Minocycline as an Adjunctive Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder: A Double Blind, Randomised, Placebo Controlled Trial

While current pharmacotherapies are efficacious, there remain a clear shortfall between symptom remission and functional recovery. With the explosion in our understanding of the biology of these disorders, the time is ripe for the investigation of novel therapies. Recently depression is conceptualized as an immune-inflammatory and nitro-oxidative stress related disorder. Minocycline is a tetracycline antibiotic that has anti-inflammatory, pro-oxidant, glutamatergic, neurotrophic and neuroprotective properties that make it a viable target to explore as a new therapy. This double blind, randomised, placebo controlled adjunctive trial will investigate the benefits of 200 mg/day of minocycline treatment, in addition to any usual treatment, as an adjunctive treatment for moderate-severe major depressive disorder. Sixty adults are being randomised to 12 weeks of treatment (with a 4 week follow-up post-discontinuation). The primary outcome measure for the study is mean change on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), with secondary outcomes including the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS), Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), Patient Global Impression (PGI), Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q) and Range of Impaired Functioning Tool (LIFE-RIFT). Biomarker analyses will also be conducted at baseline and week 12. The study has the potential to provide new treatment targets, both by showing efficacy with a new class of 'antidepressant' but also through the analysis of biomarkers that may further inform our understanding of the pathophysiology of unipolar depression.